Talk:Karl Marx

Page protection

Given the amount of vandalism, can we put a lock on the page to protect it in accordance with WP:PP? Archivingcontext (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A semi-protection, perhaps. Certainly not a full protection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

A user has recently restored the claim that Marx is considered one of the greatest economists to the lead. I find this quite outrageous. There may be those in the economic profession who consider Marx a great economist, but there are also those who do not consider him anything of the kind; indeed, some consider Marx's economic theories to be wrong. Per WP:NPOV, it seems wildly wrong to mention only favorable views of Marx's worth as an economist in the lead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Before this is added to lead, I'd like to see this claim shown in several encyclopedias and textbooks of economics. Also, per WP:LEAD, this should be discussed first in the body (Economy, history and society section seems appropriate) before making it to the lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will work on incorporating this into the body first with further citations on the matter. It may be a stretch to find Marx in economics textbooks, however, as the study of economics took a wildly different turn in the 19th century with the rise of marginalism. The classical study of economies in context of a normative view of society, which forms the basis of the thought of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, was dropped in attempts to formulate timeless theories of general explanation out of particular phenomenon. The shortcomings of such practices in the past 10-20 years, however, have led many back to the classical economists (including Marx). Archivingcontext (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Many books and articles can be found (including right-wing accounts, which otherwise despise Marx) talking of his economic theories and their greatness. He is widely considered, even by numerous immensely rich CEOs and capitalists, to be one of the greats, despite their dislike of communism. He was also voted the greatest thinker of all time in Britain, in a poll-type thing they held. Though some may disagree, he is undoubtedly considered by many to be one of the greatest economists of all time. The statement in the lead did not say that he was, merely that many consider him to be so, and that is the case. The differences of opinion, and a brief discussion could indeed be added to the body; that is a good idea. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2014647/Karl-Marx-John-Maynard-Keynes-Ten-greatest-economists-Vince-Cable.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html#lfHendersonCEE2BIO-050_footnote_nt440 And a book titled "the great economists: from Marx to Keynes", by one of the other great economists, Joseph Schumpeter http://digamo.free.fr/ten10.pdf Sarg Pepper (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you rewrite this into a paragraph, add some more references, and add it to the article's body, not the lead. If enough reliable sources are found, we can consider the claim back for the lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A sound plan! Where in the article could it be placed? Sarg Pepper (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We need a source that explains what his influence was. I disagree with Piotrus however who thinks he has had no influence and suggest that he read about communism. TFD (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it right now because I'm trying to get PhD apps done, but some good sources for this would be The worldly philosophers, by Robert Heilbroner and Capitalism and modern social theory by Anthony Giddens. Both of these have extensive (but layperson-friendly) treatments of Marx and his influence on economics and the modern social sciences. They easily support the assertion that Marx is considered one of the great economists, whether you agree with his ideas or not. (There is plenty of disagreement about most economic ideas, after all!) Kate (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it or is it not the case that some authorities consider Marx's economic theories mistaken? If the answer is that some do, then, per WP:NPOV, the lead certainly should not call Marx a great economist without noting the existence of other points of view. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If some theory appears to be (fully or partially) wrong, that does not necessarily cast a shadow on its author. As XX century demonstrated, Newtonian theory of gravity was not fully correct and needed in some adjustment. However, that did not prevented Feynman to consider Newton as the greatest physicist.

Marx, along with Smith and Keynes, belongs to one of the greatest and most influential economists in history ("the greatest economists, Smith or Marx or Keynes, have changed the course of history; they are as worthy the attention of pure historian as Louis Napoleon or Woodrow Wilson.", Hick, The American Economic Review (1974) p. 307-316). That Marx was one of the greatest economists is quite obvious, and it would not be a problem to provide necessary amount of sources to support this fact. I suggest Piotrus to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Many authorities consider Marx's theories mistaken in a variety of ways (including a lot of modern Marxist economists). This is a different question from whether he's considered influential as a seminal political economist, which I would argue is a majority view. In particular, Marx was instrumental in formulating an idea about the nature of capitalism and the role of capital. As an analogy, many of Freud's theories are considered outdated or downright ridiculous today, but that doesn't mean he wasn't influential in psychology, since he was instrumental in defining psychology as a field and establishing practices such as the talking cure. Spelling out the nature of this influence is probably a valuable addition to the simple statement that Marx is considered influential, since it would add depth and better understanding of the problem to the article. Kate (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a "great economist" implies more than simply that he was influential; it implies that his views were, or were likely to be, correct. So it's clearly a controversial statement, in Marx's case. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That is Platonism. What does "correct" mean? Were Newtonian views "correct" or not? Were Smith or Keynes "correct"? In actuality, Keyenesian views have been severely criticized, and even proven to be wrong. I am sure that can be said about almost every economist. However, all of that is just speculations. We have many reliable sources that call Marx "one of the greatest economists", so the statement in the lede is in accordance with our NPOV, V and NOR policies, and, therefore, it should be restored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV requires that articles be written neutrally, balancing favorable and critical views. Mentioning that Marx has been called a "great economist", without mentioning the less favorable (to put it mildly) views of his work that his critics have put forward, plainly is not neutral. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly, speaking, I didn't see sources that seriously contest this statement. Yes, many authors point at Marx's mistakes (he, as well as many his peers, sometimes was wrong), however, I don't know serious authors who argued that Marx cannot be considered as a great economist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, because I provided no sources that contest the claim that Marx was a "great economist", you conclude that none exist? Frankly speaking, it seems obvious that if someone's economic theories were wrong, then he was not a "great economist" in any meaningful way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't write that. I wrote I am not aware of the sources that dispute the idea that Marx was one of the greatest economists. I didn't claim such sources do not exist (it would be too arrogant to claim that something doesn't exist), although, frankly speaking, I would be surprised to learn they do. Of course, I do not mean newspaper articles authored by rightist journalists...

Secondly, your idea that every thinker whose ideas were, fully or partially, refuted, criticised or significantly modified cannot be considered as a greatest thinker (economist, philosopher, physicist, etc) is very original, and I do not think it is correct. Moreover, I never heard Marx's theory was found to be wrong: most his critics point at some local omissions and flaws, however, noone refuted it as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Using a standard of absolute correctness would, by necessity, suggest that there are no great economists. I cannot think of a single leading economist who has not, at one time or another, been shown to be misguided on empirical or ideological grounds. For example, you might refer to General equilibrium theory, a theory that won Kenneth Arrow the 1972 Nobel Prize. There are serious, serious empirical problems with this theory, to the extent that general equilbrium as formulated by the Arrow-Debreau model is not used today. That was only 40 years ago. Are we to consider Arrow to be a mere hack, because his model no longer works? Not hardly. Why should we hold Marx (or any other economist) to a standard of total correctness in order to agree that they have influenced the field? Kate (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should take the definition used by others, rather than synthesizing our own at this point. For example, Joseph Schumpeter, who lists Marx first in his book Ten Great Economists. There are plenty more, including the two I listed above, that clearly rank Marx as a great economist in precisely those words. I'm not going to look for them, though, because I need to stop yak shaving.Kate (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a statement that he necessarily was, nor indeed is it Platonism. It is merely an assertion that he is held by some (or many) to be a great economist. It is true that many are harsh critics of his work, however that is usually of his work on communism, socialism, and revolution, not on economics, about which he is still considered a great economist. And he doesn't even have to be right to be great: Aristotle was the first ever great biologist, and is still seen as a great biologist, even though we now know many of his statements to be incorrect. Inspiring or influencing those in your field necessarily makes one a great member of that field, if one's ideas are wrong. Newton was a great scientist, though we now know much of his science to be incorrect. Sarg Pepper (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant issue here is NPOV. It violates NPOV to put praise of Marx such as "great economist" in the lead while not mentioning that Marx has been subjected to any kind of criticism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The most relevant WP:NPOV clause says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." The edit you reverted says " He is also considered one of the greatest economists in history". Obviously, this statement is presented as an assertion, not as fact. Secondly, you failed to provide even a single source that says the assertion that Marx was not one of the greatest economist is incorrect. We can discuss NPOV issues only after you will provide an adequate evidence that the statement you removed has been seriously contested. What you provided so far is just your unsupported considerations about Marx's errors (which is (i) insufficient, and (ii) irrelevant). If no reasonable arguments will be provided in close future, I'll restore the statement which, in my opinion, fully complies with our NPOV, NOR and V policies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to find a source that specifically says something like, "Marx was not a great economist." The exact wording is not important. What is important is that some economists reject Marx, making it an NPOV violation to put things like "Marx is considered a great economist" (which implies he was one) in the lead. Preventing things like that is the intention of the policy. Getting legalistic about the wording doesn't help us here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement "some economists reject Marx" does not imply the statement "Marx is also considered one of the greatest economists in history" has been seriously contested. At least, you provided no evidences for that. You should either provide your evidences (sources), or stop that.

Is Napoleon considered one of greatest military commanders? Yes. Was he eventually defeated? Yes. Does it mean that the statement " he is generally regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time" is not neutral? No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Without making a statement regarding what should be included in the lead, I find this discussion of what constitutes "great" to be a curious distraction. I don't think any statement strongly linking greatness with correctness is credible in the face of numerous examples to the contrary, many of which have already been cited here with no serious refutation. This discussion would be better served with an analysis of the sources rather than (what feels like) a one-sided debate over terminology. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I find these comments irrelevant and beside the point. The issue is perfectly simple: should praise such as "Marx has been called a great economist" be in the lead when no criticism of Marx is mentioned. And the answer, per WP:NPOV, is: no. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this your comment is totally irrelevant. The statement is "Marx is also considered one of the greatest economists in history", and the reliable sources have been provided that fully support this claim (BTW, one of those sources is authored by one of the most influential economists of XX century). If you are able to provide any reliable source that challenge this claim (per NPOV), please do that. If you have nothing to present but your own considerations, please, stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Would a revision of the proposed statement to Marx is considered one of the great economists, although his ideas have also been seriously criticized resolve the problem? Both statements are true, both can be supported by sources in the body of the article, and would seem to address NPOV concerns. Kate (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I can't name even a single XIX economist whose ideas have not been seriously criticised, amended, expanded, etc, so the latter statements is a truism. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's undoubtedly true, but not all of them are considered great - no one would consider Jean-Baptiste Say a great economist, even though Say's law has been seriously amended, for example. I think this is kind of a case of all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. You know? Kate (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The impetus behind including such a statement in the lead is to give emphasis to Marx's lasting contribution to the field of economics, which is fact as shown in the original reference and the three other reference provided in the debate above (one of which is an encyclopedia article). Given the statement in the lead about the social sciences and social movements, this is a natural place to insert a reference about Marx's influence in economics. Rather than word it subjectively about greatness, however, I propose to make the insertion more descriptive by saying something about Marx as one of the founders of modern economic thought, something like, "His work in economics helped lay the foundations of modern economic thought and his ideas played a significant role in the formation of the social sciences." Also, we should work on an "economic thought" section, perhaps as 2.3 under "Thought"--to paraphrase Mark Blaug, Marx wrote only sparsely on social class, history, etc, but voluminously on economics (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html#lfHendersonCEE2BIO-050_footnote_nt440). Archivingcontext (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good expansion of the text removed by Polisher of Cobwebs. However, I do not understand why should we remove the (quite an obvious and widely supported) idea that he is considered one of greatest economists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, the lead obviously needs to mention criticism of Marx. You can't fill it with praise of this very controversial figure without mentioning the criticism. That there isn't "even a single XIX economist whose ideas have not been seriously criticised, amended, expanded" is irrelevant as an objection - Wiki articles are written for people who don't already know things like this. I think Kate's proposals are along the right lines. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, the article devotes almost no attention to criticism of Marx's economical theories. Yes, the article points at some criticism of some of his predictions, however, that hardly warrants mention of any criticism in the lede. Since it would be incorrect to say that Marx's economic theory as whole was shown to be considerably wrong, we can speak about mentioning of criticism of some concrete Marx's ideas only, and only if this criticism is properly explained and attributed, similar to what has been done in the article about another greatest economist John Maynard Keynes. In connection to that, I suggest you to add to the article, what concrete Marx's ideas were criticized, and by whom. After that, we can speak about addition of the info on criticism to the lede.

Meanwhile, please, re-add properly sourced material to the lede. You had no reason to remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

PS. It would be desirable if Marx's critics were of the same caliber as Marx himself: in the article about Keynes his critic is Friedman.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I explained my reason for removing the material. It is an NPOV violation to place vague praise ("greatest economist" - whatever that is supposed to mean) of Marx in the lead without any counter-balance of criticism. "It would be incorrect to say that Marx's economic theory as a whole was shown to be considerably wrong" is your personal view of Marx, it appears. I am not going to argue with it, except to note that it is irrelevant (the same applies to, "It would be desirable if Marx's critics were of the same caliber as Marx himself"). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you please provide some references of the criticism of Marx's economic thought that you continue to refer to. This will not only help ground our discussion here, but also aide in the writing of the lead and proposed section. Archivingcontext (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Polisher of Cobwebs, you explained the reasons, and we find your explanation insatisfactory. You failed to provide any source that demonstrates that considerable part of Marx's economic theory has been shown wrong and useless, and that it was criticized more severely that the theories of other great economists. Therefore, your considerations are just your considerations, and they cannot serve as a ground for removal of properly sourced statement from the lede. Moreover, the statement that Marx's theories were shown to be wrong simply do not follow from the article (it tells just about some minor criticism). Therefore, you have no right to insist on your revert. If you want to demonstrate the criticism of Marx was so severe that the words "he is considered as one of greatest economists" cannot be in the lede, please do that. However, both the sources provided and the article as whole convincingly demonstrate that that statement can and should be in the article. Your references to NPOV are totally unjustified, because you seem to misunderstand what does "NPOV" mean.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re your "I am not going to argue with it, except to note that it is irrelevant (the same applies to, "It would be desirable if Marx's critics were of the same caliber as Marx himself")." It is absolutely relevant, and this your statement is an additional demonstration of your misunderstanding of NPOV. The article about Keynes mentions criticism by Friedman, and that is in full accordance with NPOV. However, it would be totally incorrect to include criticism by some obscure local newspaper. Look at WP:YESPOV, the example with Wiesenthal and Irving. Again, we have an opinion of Joseph Schumpeter, and, if you want opposite opinion to be presented, find a quote from Keynes, Friedman, or from another great economist who deserves to be considered as Marx's peer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I restored the text removed by Polisher of Cobwebs, because his unsupported references to NPOV are not sufficient for removal of properly sourced text. If Polisher of Cobwebs still believes that the text is non-neutral he may start a discussion on the WP:NPOVN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Capitalism Assumptions

I noted that the article has a few assumptions on capitalism, mainly being that a characteristic of it being that the lower class is exploited by the wealthy. Also, that the labor unions have successfully improved worker's conditions. This is found under the section of Debate on Marx's predictions. I'd argue that whether capitalism creates a system in which the wealthy exploit the poor, and whether labor unions have actually provided a successful counterweight to this, is a topic which is too debatable and should not be taken as a fact under an assumption. In fact the article not only states this as an assumption but also explicitly states it as "true" and shows a clear bias towards Marxism. The article should present Marx's ideas without displaying any sort of bias in the description. Some editing is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.173.124 (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The article makes no assumptions about capitalism and no one questions whether labor unions have improved working conditions. TFD (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The economists of the Austrian school actually do; it would undermine their laissez-faire ideology to admit the obvious, so they insist that gains in working conditions have been due to the rising productivity of labour, increased access to 'superior labour' as the guild system collapsed, etc, so rising wages reflect the rising contribution of labour to the production process (ie: 'inferior labour' and 'superior labour' each got what they deserved), while trade union organization does nothing but distort the market and make unconscionable violations of 'individual liberty', blah blah. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the argument that unions distort the market really mean that they were effective, even if their results were against the greater good? TFD (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

'Effective' in that they have an effect, but not the commonly attributed effect of raising living standards or improving working conditions. Those developments are attributed instead to the 'rising tide' of capitalist development and would have happened even if unionisation had never occurred. Unions cause price inflation, declines in productivity, and wage decreases in non-union work (from which, of course, they do not conclude that non-union work should be unionized), and, most amusingly, they even 'exploit' investors. Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This section also appears to be in violation of WP:NOR. In fact the only "debate" that is at issue here is the one in the very last sentence. Unless this section can be rewritten to highlight a real debate about Marx's predictions on the progression of capitalism with reliable sources I suggest it be cut. Archivingcontext (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference number 9 "Classical Sociological Theory"

Reference number 9 in the article cites Calhoun, Classical Sociological Theory (2002) p. 23-24. There are no less than nine references in the text to this single citation, but unfortunately the pages cited refer to the Enlightenment and not Marx. (Although I must say I don't have access to the 2002 edition and am looking at the 2012 edition, so perhaps someone can confirm that this is the case in the cited edition as well, which I suspect it is for the editions can't be that different.) It may be overkill to excise all the passages that use this citation, but clearly some passages make claims that are found nowhere in the book, even in those sections on Marx. For example, the first half of the "Totalitarianism" section under legacy relies heavily on this reference, yet I can find nothing in this book to support the claims made here. Can someone supply proper references? Archivingcontext (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Debate over predictions and theories

The debate section is adequate, and I believe it perfectly valid to leave it in the article. It has sixteen sources, a perfectly acceptable amount, and includes no original research. The statements made are along the lines of 'it has been argued that this is the case, but this also is true' or 'some argue this, but Marx actually said the following:...'. The debates exist in literature, and the editor is not fabricating them. sources 164, 165, and 166 are from the literature. Sources 167 and 168 are quotes from Marx himself. 169 - 174 are all based on literature discussing the subject. I don't understand how or why the claim of original research can be justified, and even if it were that does not merit the removal of the entire section, but rather the editing of it. When quotes by Marx saying that he doesn't believe revolution in a feudal country will lead to socialism, but rather capitalism, are quoted and preceded by the statement 'Marx wrote that socialist revolutions held in countries that were not yet capitalist would only act to bring capitalism to the country: not socialism' this is not original research; it is the mentioning of a relevant quote. Not all sources have to be literature. Literature on the topic does indeed exist, but it is simpler to go straight to the man himself for a quote, provided that conclusions are not unfairly drawn from the quote. Finally the fact that most of the section is backing up Marx's predictions does not merit its removal. The section is about debate, and if one side of the debate has since been debunked they still merit mention; just mention in a 'it was claimed... but this is now known to be false' way. This is a debates section not a why Marx was wrong section. I have replaced the section. If there are still issues point out the specific areas and they can be amended. Sarg Pepper (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That section seems clearly argumentative - it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I agree with the reasons Archivingcontext gave for removing it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

His reasons were not clear, and are discussed above. You need to provide evidence that every single sentence of that section is faulty or it should not be removed, only amended. Since not one error has been stated, the only issue being 'I don't like how it sounds' there is no grounds for its removal. If you wish to rewrite it so you don't think it sounds like an essay, that's fine, but don't simply delete it all. Sarg Pepper (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. If something is written like an essay, then it's not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, you're in no position to continue restoring that material when multiple other editors have taken the position that it should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The section is bad through and through. It's an argument for a particular take on Marx's ideas and legacy, rather than documenting what his ideas actually were. The content is not NPOV encyclopedic content. I have some sympathy with some of what is presented, but it's arguing for this take on Marxism rather than for Marxism as a whole. As such, each sentence in the section has to be removed - if you think you can present a version that is not, as Polisher of Cobwebs says, basically a short essay I'd be interested to see it. Cadriel (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly has its flaws, I agree: I think a rewrite is a good option, I just didn't think we should remove the entire section without discussion about replacing it. I'm willing to have a crack at writing one. If you chaps could give me a couple of examples of the issues you have with the article that would be good (a specific sentence, for example); so I know what to avoid in the rewrite. If not, and it's just that the feel of the section is wrong, I'll just try my hand at it regardless and try to keep it sounding like an encyclopedia. I'll post my attempt on the talk page so we can discuss it, as it will not be great first try. Is this good for everyone? Of course if anyone else wanted to write one instead that's fine as well. Sarg Pepper (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Something that might help explain some of the opposition to this section (I think - at least, this is what I see) is that by going back and forth between secondary sources and primary sources (Marx) to frame a debate, it seems like synthesis, like the sort of thing you'd do for a term paper. This is a valid thing to do sometimes, but it's not helpful when presented as a debate in the literature, because it's not really in the literature. By going to the secondary sources to frame the debate (which will sometimes refute, and sometimes support, Marx's arguments) it would feel more balanced, personally. It would also help, perhaps, if we could lose the prediction verbiage. Marx wasn't a prognisticator, or even a futurist, so to talk about which of his predictions has or has not come true in some fashion is sort of beside the point, IMO. Kate (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a sample of the objectionable writing in that section: "Marx predicted socialism would eventually replace capitalism. It has been argued that this was incorrect, as since the late 20th century state socialism (which some historians link to Marx) is in retreat, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shift towards a market economy by the People's Republic of China. Marx actually wrote, however, that socialist revolutions held in countries that were not yet capitalist would only act to bring capitalism to the country: not socialism. China and Russia were both feudal (and hence pre-capitalist) at the time of their revolution, so this prediction has actually so far been accurate." As I say, it looks like part of an essay about Marx, written to expound a particular perspective. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This interpretation of Marx is not settled and should not be considered as such. For instance, "some historians" without being followed by references falls under weasel words that should be avoided. I don't think you can rewrite it without being essentially POV. I think a better replacement would be less concerned with "correcting" alleged misconceptions about "predictions" and instead focus on scholars who differentiate between the young Marx and the late Marx, and ones who consider Marx's work to have a fundamental unity. Cadriel (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I find Kate's comment above to highlight the real problem with the section under consideration: its entire premise about Marx's predictions being right or wrong misses the point. Coupled with all the other problems pointed out in our discussion here, I just don't see how it could be rewritten in an adequate and acceptable way. More useful, it seems to me, and more appropriate for this section of "Legacy," would be a sub-section on the intellectual influence of Marx's ideas in economy, philosophy, and society beyond just the long paragraph of secondary quotes masquerading as the "influence" section. Archivingcontext (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" section

I hate to do this, but it appears that the "Totalitarianism" section needs to get the ax as well, at least in the form that it is in. I am checking out the references and they just don't add up. The first four references do not refer to what is written in the article. The Classical Sociological Theory references do not state what it is cited for here, as pointed out in my talk comment above on "Reference number 9." The Sherman, Reinventing Marxism reference is a gross distortion of what the original text says, i.e. that the Soviets transformed Marxism once in power. The next three citations I have not been able to locate the original book, but they are all from a single source, hardly justifying the claim that "critics" and "theorists" in general hold these views, and is in violation of WP:Weasel. The rest of the paragraph, beginning with "lastly" is about a backlash to communist governments rather than the totalitarianism legacy of Marx's thought.

This section may be able to be saved with a little rewriting and proper citations, but I wonder if this article on Marx the man is the right place for it. It was Marx's followers who made the system of Marxism, and it is this that may have been exploited and twisted into forms for state controlled governments. In order to deserve a place in this article, a more nuanced argument would have to found on the seeds of totalitarianism in Marx's thought and how they blossomed to leave the legacy of totalitarianism. Archivingcontext (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree here; this section belongs on the criticisms of the soviet union page, but considering it begins by stating 'the following section is about things that are contrary to Marxism' I think it's worth deleting. Revision can be attempted, but ultimately would probably still have the problem of being about men who claimed (tenuously) to be followers of Marx rather than about Marx himself. I know Karl Popper believed Marxism would sow the seeds of totalitarianism, but because, as the section says, Marx is vehemently against totalitarianism, I think that belongs on the page criticisms of marxism, or possibly on marxism, rather than on a page about Marx himself. I'll remove it for now, I think. Sarg Pepper (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm for this - there is a lengthy Marxism page where this debate is appropriate. I do think there is room for two further discussions in the Legacy section. First, as I said in the discussion of the "predictions" sub-section, it would be worth covering some of the debate around the young Marx / late Marx distinction and how this is viewed. Second, I think it's worth having something about the "end of history" narrative (Fukuyama et al) in the '90s which in many ways was viewed as a refutation of Marxism and the swing back with recent scholars such as Eagleton, Harvey et al which was in the final sentences of the Totalitarianism sub-section. Cadriel (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be OR. We would need sources that connect Marx to totalitarianism. TFD (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialism

The following text in the article is incorrect: "He argued that under socialism society would be governed by the working class in what he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the "workers' state" or "workers' democracy". He believed that socialism would, in its turn, eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called communism".

Marx used the words "communism" and "socialism" interchangeably. I.e. communism was the same as socialism, and socialism the same as communism. Leninism and its offshoots are the only variants of marxian communism that consider socialism a transitional society. Since "socialism" according to Marx was the same as "communism", and communism is classless, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not exist under communism/socialism, but rather it is the stage in which the bourgeoisie are being expropriated, society and economy reorganized, etc.

Seralys (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)