Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Karl Marx. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Did Marx saw himself as a Communist?

Well, the question might be rather strange, but I ask it anyway. I read a line once that was described as a quote of a saying by Marx himself. It stated something like "I am not a Marxist". Unfortunately, I do neither recall the exact words of it nor where I read it, not even if it was credible in the context I read it.

From a biographical viewpoint I would find it interesting to know if Marx really thought himself to be a Marxist/Communist and not only as a practical philosopher. I would compare that question to the case of Machiavelli who wrote "The Prince", a "manual" for monarchs, while it is sometimes argued by experts of the matter that Machiavelli was in reality a Republican. Finding an answer for this question might provide another interesting information about the person of Marx himself that could be added to the article. 217.236.30.141 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The famous remark by Marx to the effect that he was not a Marxist certainly does need context. In a nutshell, Marx came into conflict with the 'Marxist' wing of the French Socialists and said that if their politics represented Marxism, 'I myself am not a Marxist.' Marx was making the point that his thought was being misrepresented by people who he profoundly disagreed with. Inevitably, the phrase has often been reproduced without the context. You can read a full outline of this at: http://libcom.org/forums/thought/im-not-a-marxist As for the question of Marx considering himself a communist, there really can be no doubt on this point. Marx was active in communist politics and writing on communist theory long before he wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party. In addition, the questioner seems to conflate Marxism and communism but it is worth bearing in mind that it is entirely possible to be a communist without being a Marxist. --The Cosmopolite (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

bettering the bio

I find the bio section rather poor, it is sketchy and poorly written, it fails to give a summary either way. Example: 'During the first half of the 1850s the Marx family lived in poverty and constant fear of creditors in a three room flat on Dean Street in Soho, London. Marx and Jenny already had four children and three more were to follow. Of these only three survived to adulthood. Marx's major source of income at this time was Engels, who was drawing a steadily increasing income from the family business in Manchester.' Now, we have not even been introduced to Engels yet, not knew anything about him (it isn't even linked to his bio) to the new reader these stuff throws them off. Anyone who knows Marx's life better....would you tidy this up? Diabulos (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and question why there are seperate Biography and Career sections. I know of know other biography article on wikipedia which uses this structure and it is confusing to the reader . What is the difference between them? Surely a career is best decribed within the biography. I propose they are merged into one biography along the lines of.

Biography

-Early life in Germany

-Exile in Paris and Brussels

-Exile in London

Lumos3 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Article avoids mentioning that Karl Marx himself was baptized a Lutheran

The article mentioned that his father converted to Lutheranism, but leads the reader to believe that Karl himself somehow remained a Jew. This is false. Karl's mother was baptized a Lutheran, and young Karl himself was baptized in the same church as his father, in Trier, in 1824 at the age of six. I edited the article to reflect this fact. It's funny. Many of the categories at the bottom of the page list Marx as being a Jew. Not one of them refer to the fact that he was a Lutheran, albeit a lapsed one, and only ethnically Jewish. ----Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

henry george

Can we have a citation? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing link

Eleanor is not linked in the list of Marx's children (I can't do it because the article is locked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.107 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done that for you. Why not create an account? It only takes a couple of seconds.FrFintonStack (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused first paragraph

I've reworded the first paragraph as it contains a number of errors. Firstly, Marx used the term 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangably: it was Lenin who introduced the idea of socialism as a transitionary state. Secondly, and relatedly, it then presents the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as the state form when communism is achieved. This is not the case, as firstly, in Marxist theory, there is no state under communism. Moreover, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would make no sense in this context as at this stage classes have been dissolved and there is thus no proletariat to rule. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism.FrFintonStack (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical materialism

The article states:

Critics have also claimed to have shown problems with the concept of historical materialism. At the base of historical materialism, they claim, is the view that the mode of production creates all historical events and changes

There are two problems here. Firstly is that the reference given does not refer the reader to any of these critics or the problems they identify, but to Marx's own Poverty of Philospohy. The second, which is rather more difficult to resolve, is that historical materialism is not Marx's concept; rather it was coined and formulated by Engels after Marx's death and later refined by Lenin. Therefore, criticism of the theory isn't that relevant to a page on Marx himself and would be better on one dedicated to Marxist thought. The confusion may derive from Marx's concept of dilectical materialism, which is superficially similar, but is less deterministic and teleological and with greater room for agency.FrFintonStack (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

the words "and Arab" in section Marx and antisemitism

In section Marx and antisemitism, the phrase: "the Jewish Question' influenced National Socialist, as well as Soviet and Arab anti-Semites" has been revised twice recently, making me think there is a low-grade edit war brewing. User:KingOtherstuff removed "and Arab" on December 5, 2008, saying "The word is not in the sources. Obviously it was added later on." Then User:Vision Thing added "and Arab" back on December 19, 2008. Is there a disagreement regarding whether the sources include the words "and Arab"? Can one of you defend your position? Thanks.—GraemeMcRae^talk 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the sources some of which are available online and although I think the sentence is basically correct, I did not find such a correlation discussed. I think the removal of the word Arab is justified. Marx can take credit for many things but not for that...

Come to think of it, the assoicaiton with the Nazis is also problematic. European antisemitism as a whole - yes, but to specifically make him responsible for the Nazis is overkill. I did find a reference in Muravchik, who discusses the Marxist origins of Fascism. Muravchik states that Marx advocated the extermination of "reactionary races" (see pages 164-165) and connects this to Hitler's policies. Muravchik found a speech of Hitler in which he addressed Marx "on the Jewish question" (specifcally) and then rejects it as insufficient. The association is problematic because Hitler hated Marx and all he stood for, so clearly Hitler would never admit to being influenced by Marx.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1893554457/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=marx+nazi&go.x=16&go.y=11&go=Go!#

In this letter Marx describes Lasalle as a Jewish nigger:

the Marx letter" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm

Its Engels who talked about reactionary races. see the last line of this letter

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

Telaviv1 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"In a letter to Engels, Marx referred to Ferdinand Lasalle as a "Jewish Nigger"." (Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx) - So does that mean that Marx wrote to Engels in English, and not in German? I was under the impression that they wrote to each other in German, but maybe that is wrong. However, if this letter was originally written in German, then the translator to English translated the German word to "nigger". That seems unusual, as German doesn't have such a word. Just a question - it seems impossible to find accurate information on the Net on the source of that letter and if it was translated from German to English or not.Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Marx's death and his body

The article seems to lack how he died and where his body is. I don't have the knowledge about this, so it would be great if anyone can give any information about this. I actually am very interested in him.

--Malik Al Assad (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx died of (probably) a stroke. As one Marxist said; he had spent a good deal of his life drinking beer and smoking heavily, it is hardly surprising he died when he did. Engles commented that Marx died quickly, without suffering.Johnwrd (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

should say he was a German JEW, not just a German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.221 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? RolandR (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Plrk (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should simply say he was a member of the European Boureoisie...

He wasn't Jewish (he had been baptised) and was opposed to religion. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought the poster of this was trying to make a petty insult, but then I stumbled across this biography of Marx.

http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ma-Mo/Marx-Karl.html

It says he is from a long line of Rabbis and was barred from law practice because if it. Williamrmck (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that it then said that his father converted to Lutheran. But it should be noted that he is from a formerly Jewish family, even if it was before he was born. Williamrmck (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That information is indeed noted, in the appropriate place, in our article. The disagreement was whether the first sentence, which currently states that he was a German philosopher, should instead state that he was a German Jew. Three editors have independently opposed this. Marx was baptised, and never identified as a Jew; to so describe him in the first sentence would be giving weight to this aspect of his family background. To describe someone as a Jew is not, of course, an insult; but it is frequently intended as such. RolandR (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

media

why this audiofile from a speech of Kennedy about Marx? (with an offensiv Background) thi has nothing to do with the person or the Work of Marx and it is not neutral! it is offensiv! you can also maybe take a audiofile on the site on Kennedy contains a bad joke about Kennedy...it makes no sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkreuzner (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Statelessness @ death

This is misleading. Marx was born in what would become (after c. 1870) the nation of Germany, but did not live there as that nation-state came into existence. Having married a UK citizen and raised children there he may have been implicitly an imperial subject/british citizen. If he was explicitly denied or refused the later, that should be sourcable. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Marx was only married to Jenny Marx. The suggestion he was 'Stateless' at death may not be wrong. The children of Marx born in London would not have any 'Right' to British Citizenship. A Quirky point of English Law was that people born in England (even 'English' people), had no right to automatic citizenship.

Did Karl Marx ever marry a UK citizen? The only marriage I know of (and the article knows of) took place in the Rhineland to Jenny von Westphalen, a citizen of the Prussian Rhineland, on 1843-06-19, -- the marriage lasting until her death in December 1881. -- The suggestion that raising children in the UK can makes one implicitly a British subject sounds like a reflection of 21st-century sentimentality rather than any application of 19th-century citizenship laws. Do we have sources? -- On Marx's own attitude to the matter of his personal citizenship: he did make attempts to regain his rights as a Prussian citizen, see: Padower, Saul K., ed. (1969). "Letter 341: To Ferdinand Lassalle (in Berlin) London, May 29, 1861". The letters of Karl Marx: selected and translated with explanatory notes and an introduction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 462. ISBN 0-13-531533-6. [Note 7:] In April, 1861, while Marx was in Berlin, he applied for a restoration of his Prussian citizenship; despite Lassalle's efforts, the application was rejected in November, 1861. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl=, |nopp=, and |month= (help); Text "editor-link" ignored (help); Text "editorn-link" ignored (help) -- Marx himself explained his situation and attitudes in 1861: "... I have no passport except an old French expulsion pass of 1849. ... To have myself naturalized as an Englishman (as Freiligrath, Bucher, Zimmermann, etc, did) and to travel with an English passport, I also did not want. ... In 1845, when the Prussian government persecuted me in Belgium, I obtained through my brother-in-law an emigration certificate from Prussia. Under the pretext that I ceased to be a Prussian subject, I was, as is known, expelled by the Prussian government in 1849. Legally, however, all refugees living ten years outside the country also ceased to be Prussian "subjects." I have never let myself be naturalized abroad. Furthermore, pursuant to the decision of the Preliminary Parliament in 1848 -- a decision accepted as valid by all German governments at the election to the Frankfurt Parliament -- refugees, even those who, like Vogt, etc., had become naturalized abroad could again claim their right as German citizens and be elected everywhere to the Parliament. Based on this, I requested in 1848 that my Prussian citizenship be reintegrated. The then Prussian Ministry rejected the request, but dared to treat me as a foreigner only after the revolution was defeated ..." -- Padower, Saul K., ed. (1969). "Letter 336: To Ferdinand Lassalle (in Berlin) Zalt-Bommel,, March 7, 1861". The letters of Karl Marx: selected and translated with explanatory notes and an introduction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 462. ISBN 0-13-531533-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl=, |nopp=, and |month= (help); Text "editor-link" ignored (help); Text "editorn-link" ignored (help) -- Pedant17 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Karl "Charlie" Marxs?????

In "Introducing Marx" the author claims that Karl Marx's real name was Charles is there any proof of this?

I think what he says is that in English the name would be Charles, rather than Karl. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Languages

It would be interesting to know what languages, other than German, Marx spoke or wrote in. Sca (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"karl marx looks like a homeless guy"

I just noticed this to the right of "The younger Karl Marx." Anyone how to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfreak (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote Regarding his views on Russia

Man I am having the hardest time trying to remember this Quote of Marx, where he talked about the unlikelihood of a communist revolution in Russia, does anyone have it? It might help with the article, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.166 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There might be something useful here or here or here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is relevant material but we need to be careful. For one thing, Marx himself wrote in one of the later introductions to the Manifesto (the translation into Russion obviously) that he was actually hopeful for a revolution in Russia. More importantly, Marx did not consider himself a prophet. He made pronouncements based on the data that was available to him at the time. I think with Marx there is always a presumption that new data can change the pronouncement. Let's put it this way: if Marx didn't think a revolution was likely in Russia - he was right! No revolution in Russia occured or succeded during Marx's life-time! My point is that whatever quote we find ... what is the context? And how will we contextualize it? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone should carefully edit this article as it has been hacked intoCubFanAl (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? How does one "hack into" an article that anyone can edit in the first place? Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I assume you were referring to this? If so, I've gone ahead and fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Marx outside the Bank of England

Image:Marx outside the Bank of England.jpg showes a man on a demonstration in London who waves a flag which seems to show the portrait of Karl Marx together with a parole which is difficult to read. I don't think that this picture belongs into the article since it only represents the point of view of the man holding the flag. We don't know who and how relevant he is. To include the picture would turn the article into a soap-box for this particular man and the demonstration in which he takes part. The claim that this protest-march has been inspired by Karl Marx would still need a reliable source. --Schwalker (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So what if it only represents the man's POV? The money of Marx only represents the GDR. The statue of Marx only represents that park in Budapest. The protest picture shows that a man who died in the 1880s is still relevant in contemporary society, which is perfect for the section Marx's influence. --Tocino 20:44, 4 April 209 (UTC)

We don't even know the man's name, nor the political party which he may be member of, and represent with his flag. Marx did not critisize finance, money or the banking system, but capitalism. On the contrary did he critisize his contemporaries, who tried to reform capitalism by the abolishment of money. That is why it seems possible that the flagwaver or his organization (who we don't know) actually only uses Marx' picture without having understood his theory. --Schwalker (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Career Section... Marx in London

In the last line of the last paragraph we read, "In his correspondence with Vera Zasulich, Marx contemplated the possibility of Russia's bypassing the capitalist stage of development and building communism on the basis of the common ownership of land characteristic of the village mir.[citation needed]" I do not know of a citation to support this via the correspondence with Zasulich, but this point is verifiable in Marx's preface to the Russian edition of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1882, which is directly quoted in the section on "Marx's influence".--Revihs (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Private Statement

This article claims to be on Karl Marx as a "philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, humanist and revolutionary".

In its last paragraph, the article quotes from a private letter on a private issue, which was not intended for publication, nor refers to any of the fields for which Marx is considered to be relevant.

In accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy: ″When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.″

Moreover, in a recently disputed version, the article claimed: "Lasalle's own writings are filled with similar language".

As far as I can see, the book by Lindemann does not claim that Lasalle had made a statment similar to that of Marx. This article should avoid to label Lasalle an antisemitist, which would turn him into a culprit just because he had been the object of Marx' statement , of which Lassalle probably even did not know.

Since there is much to say about the poltical differences between Marx and Lasalle, but this issue is totally private, I have removed both Marx' statement and the misleading comment on Lasalle. --Schwalker (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, but Lindemann says "Lasalle's own writings are filled with similar langauge" -- just that, in the very context we're working with as background. In any case, I approve getting rid of the private statement, since it carries undue weight, especially in light of the mainstream view of Marx as quite progressive-minded, including on Jewish emancipation and race, as my own reverted edit of his commentary clarified. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Marx is not a living person so BLP doesn't refer to him, but if removal of reference to Lasalle will settle recent dispute, I'm ready to get rid of it. -- Vision Thing -- 19:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're correct about that; I, though, said nothing about BLP. Undue weight is a separate policy. You deleted my additions balancing out your edit in the name of keeping the "consensus version" (an unofficial policy, btw) that was created in August 2008. (It's archived here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karl_Marx/Archive_5#Marx_and_anti-semitism_edits). But I was balancing out what you added after the so-called "consensus version" was reached - (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&oldid=235477337).

What happened to that? Either respect the consensus or not. You can't have it both ways. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add that part, it was added later by someone else. -- Vision Thing -- 19:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's alright. You were doing your darndest to police the version when not working on laissez-faire economics, but the negative edits to the set-in-stone consensus version just happened to slip your eye. No biggie: that sometimes happens to the best of us. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Did England make a true example study for Capital?

When Marx was writing Capital, men like Darwin were pointing out that 'Islands are often note worthy for their ridiculous species of Animals, think of Galapagos and the biggest 'Island of all' Australia'. Perhaps Marx should have kept that in mind when studying the Island of Britain. Britain, with it's secure, privileged Middle Class, and it's chaotic working Class, bred for nothing more than to provide cheap labour and cannon fodder, could hardly have been a more ridiculous case study for economics. Could an Economic and social system like England ever have survived on the Continent? the answer has to be "no". Capital, should always be read in the light of it's 'inadequate guinea pig'.Johnwrd (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of Europe's working class were worse off than the working class in Britain at that time, mainly because countries like Germany and Italy were still catching up with Britain (which was, lets not forget, the mother of industrialisation) and in Britain the money was beginning to trickle down. People in Britain were better off by 1900 than they had been in 1800, before the Industrial Revolution, (not just the middle class who had worked their way up but the working class who found that food, fuel etc was cheaper and so took up less of their income). Life expectancy was up, education was mandatory (the three R's), Unions had been legalised and were growing in influence, the franchise had been extended repeatedly, and workers could afford to eat meat much more than previously (seemingly trivial but not so at the time), and in 1911 the old age pension would be introduced. Of course conditions were still terrible but one of the main reasons communism never flourished in Britain (and the more mild Labour party won instead) was because, in comparison to the conditions in many other countries, the people of Britain were well off. And in comparison to Russia the working class were virtually rich, (90% of Russians were serfs until the 1850s, whereas in Britain most people hadnt been serfs for 600 years).Willski72 (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

England was ideal subject for Marx's research for Capital as it was the world's first fully developed industrial capitalist society. Parker1parker (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic and placement issues regarding the first section

The paragraphs in the first section which attempt to outline much of his ideology seem extraordinarily out of place; the primary source here is "The Communist Manifesto" which, despite being one of the most widely read pieces by Marx, does not provide a particularly clear conceptual framework, and only serves to outline the ideas he was to vastly elaborate on (particularly in Das Kapital, but elsewhere as well). Thus it represents a very limited view of Marx's contributions to philosophy, sociology, economics, history, and social theory, and instead only presents the views of his work as a radical agitator (the Manifesto was written in the spirit of the 1848 revolutions, after all).

I would suggest moving this summation to other parts of the article in order to provide a more balanced perspective of Marx and Marx's work, one which can do justice to the important contributions he has made to academic discourse while at the same time stressing his importance in the development of Communism, instead of trying to squish the two together in a summary which leaves people with the impression that the ideas present in the Manifesto are all Marx contributed to academics. Anyone with me? Undeniably (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No objection - but we have to keep a balance, between the academic marx and the activist marx. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, Picture?

Does someone else find issue with a picture of a guy playing a recorder as a picture of Karl Marx?

It was a vandal - I've reverted the changes. Please feel free to revert and warn any editor that does stuff like that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the revert. I saw it last night when I referenced the Marx entry while working on another article and meant to figure out how to fix it this morning, but fortunately you beat me to it. For future reference, I'm new to Wiki editing (one of those "long time listener, first time caller" type situations) and have never done a revert before. Can someone tell me briefly how to do that or point me to the Wiki instructions? Thanks. EnRealidad (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There's "STFU your MUM" written underneath the top picture of KM. I have issues with that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecinadeblog (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

German?!

This article states that Karl Marx was a German philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist and revolutionary But during (most of) his lifetime Germany did not excist it was either Prussia or North-Germany. --82.134.154.25 (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The concept of being "German" goes back way before the birth of modern Germany. See Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation as an example of identifying as German hundreds of years before Marx, and the German Confederation that succeeded it in 1815.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See the footnote on the word "German". Without that explanatory footnote on Marx's statelessness I would object strenuously to the oversimplification of calling Marx "German" or a "German philosopher...". WP:MOSBIO recommends for an "Opening paragraph": "The opening paragraph should have: [...] 3 Nationality & ethnicity - 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. [...] 2. Ethnicity or sexuality should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The "jew" categories are bit overdone on the English wikipedia

I have looked on the German, Russian, Italian, Dutch and French wikipedia Karl Marx articles. In none of them was he in one of the "jewish" categories.

The Dutch category listing was as follows (translated with google):

The French categories (google translator):

The German one (google translator):

All the other wikipedias that I mentioned have similar categories for that article.

The English wikipedia is somewhat unique with its habit to give the "jew badge" to people who aren't considered as jewish by any religious or worldly law.

Why the difference compared to the other wikipedias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.31.188 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

According to sources Karl Marx was born Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. But he was baptised as a child and as an adult did not consider himself Jewish. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But our article says, in relation to the father of Karl Marx, "…a year or so before Karl was born, his father—probably because his professional career required it—was baptized in the Evangelical Established Church. Karl was baptized when he was six years old." There is implication that the father (Heinrich Marx) did not exactly convert wholeheartedly. And we see that the boy (Karl Marx) did not undergo conversion until the age of six. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We cannot make inferences. But if we were, I would infer that Heinrich wasn't so gung-ho about becoming a Christian - he chose to become a Lutheran in an area where everyone else was Catholic maybe as a little kind of protest about Christianity. His wife did not convert until after her parents died - not because she did not want to convert, but out of deference to her parents' feelings. People can have all sorts of reasons for doing and not doing things. One thing we do know: Heinrich was not shomrei mitzvot and did not maintain his ties with the Jewish community, and Karl was explicit that he did not view himself as a Jew or identify with other Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You say that "…Heinrich was not shomrei mitzvot…" Heinrich Marx need not have been "shomrei mitzvot" in order to be Jewish. Not being "shomrei mitzvot" would not cause him to be any less "Jewish." A large proportion of Jews for example in the United States today are nonobservant. They are nevertheless Jewish. Karl Marx was certainly Jewish until he was of age six. Whether he was technically Jewish after that can be debated. Christianity may maintain that a "lapsed Christian" is no longer Christian, but that is not necessarily the case with Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Knock-knock! I was just adding a fact. You come back with more speculation. Speculate all you want. Marx said he wasn't a Jew and no respected biographer or historian of Marx says he was a Jew. He wasn't a Jew. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The categories relating to his Jewishness are correct though; beyond any doubt he was Jewish at least until the age of six. Perhaps I misunderstand your reason for saying that the father of Karl Marx, Heinrich Marx, was not "shomrei mitzvot." I don't see how this is applicable to the son's religious identity. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does the five year old Karl Marx have any significance? To answer your question, the point about shomrei mitzvot was in the same line as his hot having any ties to the Jewish community. The point is that there is no actual evidence of any Jewish sentiment on his part, and no evidence that marx grew up in a home that had ani Jewish influence. We can both speculate - we can speculate that Heinrich was an accomplished dancer or loved to cook. We just have no evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein -- many would consider his Jewishness until his fifth birthday to be significant. I think editors should just report the facts that are supported by reliable sources. Readers can choose to dismiss those facts as not significant if they so choose. There are probably some readers who would find it notable that Karl Marx was born Jewish.

Concerning Karl Marx's father, Heinrich: his being nonobservant does not make him non-Jewish. And you are expressing concern that Karl Marx's childhood home lacked "Jewish sentiment." Bear in mind that the majority of American Jews today are nonobservant. Would you doubt that they are Jewish? And you are saying that you think I am "speculating" about something. Can you please tell me what you feel I am speculating about? Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) What do you mean when you say Marx and his father were Jewish? Are you using a religious criterion, or an ethnic definition? In either case, if someone rejects this category, who are we to insist that it is applicable? RolandR 18:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RolandR -- but Karl Marx was Jewish, at least until the age of five or six. Are you saying that the father, Heinrich Marx was not Jewish? The article says the opposite. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am asking what you mean when you say he was Jewish. My father is an optician; that doesn't make me an optician. RolandR 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RolandR -- I am just assuming that the sources in the article which say he was Jewish are correct. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Jews are Jewish for life -- the issue here is not his Jewishness but Wikipedia policy as to what one may say about another when that person denies something. This is not a forum for discussing Judaism, for if it were, it would necessarily follow Jewish law -- but as we can all see, it does not. God demanded from Jean-Marie Lustiger, among others, an answer as to why he didn't sit in a succah and why he didn't put on tefillin each morning, but the majority of people on this planet, past + present, would disagree with this, despite the fact that I and some others see it as indisputable, objective fact. If Wikipedia were my diary, Karl Marx would be labelled as Jewish, but Wikipedia is not my diary. So while Bus stop is correct in stating that Marx was Jewish, he might be in violation of Wikipedia policy -- I don't know. Perhaps Bus stop himself will comment on my comment about his comments. :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) I don't think one need prove Karl Marx was Jewish at death in order for him to be included in the categories that the person opening this thread refers to. I should think that simply having been Jewish as a child satisfies the requirement that these categories require. Did not his childhood launch him on the trajectory that was his life? If we are to attach any significance to conversion, and Baptism, then of course we attach significance to his prior state. I am not saying that he was not a Jew all his life. But we know for sure that he was Jewish prior to Baptism at age six. Why the other Wikipedias may not include Karl Marx in the same categories is something I cannot answer. They would have to speak for themselves. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be just as incorrect to include him in a category of Baptists, despite his baptism as a child. The fact of his birth to formerly Jewish parents, and of his (presumably non-voluntary) baptism at the age of five, were of no relevance to Marx, and therefore of no relevance to this article. I repeat my question: what do you mean when you say he was Jewish? (Maybe we should have a category for the people Isaac Deutscher described as "non-Jewish Jews?)RolandR 22:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RolandR -- the mother of Karl Marx was Jewish at the time of the birth of Karl Marx. That is one of the two ways a person acquires Jewish identity. The other way (which is not relevant to this situation) is conversion. Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course conversion is relevant, as Marx converted to Christianity and was brought up in a Christian household. It is true he was not a Christian prior to the age of 6. Clearly, any philosophical or political tracts he wrote as a five year old can be viewed as the work of a Jew. Um, did he do anything of signficance before he was baptized? Let's face it: Marx has an article in Wikipedia not because of his achievements as a five year-old, but because of what he wrote, almost entirely after 1846. When he was a Christian. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you say that he "was brought up in a Christian household," but I think some doubt is cast on that. This article says that Marx's father converted, "probably because his professional career required it." Also, the Heinrich Marx article (on the father), says that Heinrich "converted to Lutheranism in order to be permitted to practice law." I think that casts doubt on how Christian the household was that Karl Marx grew up in. Are not both these articles citing practical rather than religious reasons for conversion to Christianity? Was Karl Marx a practicing Christian? Our article makes no mention of it. What we know is that Karl Marx was a Jew prior to the age of about 5 or six. And it was the Jew who grew into the giant of the twentieth century that we know as Karl Marx. Did Christianity have bearing on the adult that Marx grew into? I don't think our article on Marx makes mention of it. The inclusion in the categories, which is what the original question in this section was about, needs no more justification than that as a boy he was a Jew. Whether or not his father had to convert himself and his family to Christianity for practical, career-oriented reasons, should not cloud their Jewish background. This is not a black-and-white issue, and I don't presume to know clearly the relative inputs of the respective religions to the man's psyche. But it seems premature and un-thought out to consider removing Marx from Jewish-related categories, as is suggested in the initiating post of this thread. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have not yet deleted any of the categories, so I guess i agree with you. Should they be cut? Not so long as the discussion is just between the two of us. Let's see if any others chime in with strong feelings about this, I think at least several people should agree to deleting them before they are deleted. howefully our dialogue will give other editors enough to make a decision on. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment above, Slrubenstein. Who do you agree with? At the top of this thread, you agree with the IP proposal to delete the category, and that seems to be what you have argued so far. Do you now think that the category should be included? And if so, why? I think that it is mistaken to describe Marx as a Jew, or as a Christian. He was an atheist for all of his adult life, no-one has argued that his purely nominal Jewish or Christian family background had any effect whatsoever on his writings, and it would be at best meaningless to include either of these as a category. I would delete the category. Bus stop comments that Marx was not a practising Christian, so this category should not be included. But nor was he a practising Jew, so in facr he is apparently arguing against his own conclusion -- unless he insists that Marx was erhnically or culturally Jewish; in which case he must justify this usage of the term. RolandR 18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And it may be worth noting that even the Hebrew article does not include Marx in the category of German Jews. RolandR 18:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am just sticking to facts. Marx was born a Jew. he was baptized at 6. He did not identify as a Jew, nor as a Christian. But Judaism is a racial and national category and not just a religion. There were Germans who considered him to be of the jewish race. Also, Jewish authorities are I believe divided as to whether baptism means that one is no longer Jewish. There are multiple points of view here, and you should know that Wikipedia deals with views, not truths. You ask me what side I am on. I thought I made that clear as day:I am on the side of further discussion. If others do not care to join the discussion, then I would say there is not enough weight to change the status quo. If many people register their opposition to these category links, well, I won't stop them. But the tags are not clearly wrong, they just represent one point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RolandR -- you refer to Karl Marx's "purely nominal…Jewish background," but if someone is nonobservant they aren't "nominally Jewish" but rather they are Jewish just as an observant Jew is Jewish.

To find Karl Marx's "family background" we would look to Karl Marx's mother and father. I've perused the Heinrich Marx article as well as this, the Karl Marx article, and I find nothing other than that Karl Marx's mother and father were Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Judaism, Marx is Jewish. So have that in the article and it will be no different than anyone else who was Jewish but preferred to ignore or deny the ramifications? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

{undent} If judaism is a religion Marx was not Jewish. He was an atheist. If being Jewish is an ethnic identity then Marx was Jewish. Either way this is a whole heap of debate over something of almost no relevance. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Simon -- your perspective on Judaism does not correlate with reality. Judaism is nothing but a religion, and as a result of the common drive of Jews in terms of their religious interests (philosophical focus, sacredness of Israel, hesitation to intermarry among other faiths, etc.), Judaism exists as a nation and a culture as well. But Judaism does not recognize an individual's desire to leave the religion, and therefor, Marx's personal sentiments are irrelevant to his Jewishness. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Some would say this has a lot of relevance to how one reads Marx's essays On the Jewish Question. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And others would disagree. If you can find a reliable source which makes this argument, it should certainly be mentioned in the article. Enzo Traverso, who discusses the essay at length in his book The Marxists and the Jewish Question, does not advance this argument. RolandR 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, Atheism is very commonplace among Jews (just as it is among any group of people). Judaism posits the existence of G-d. But a person remains a Jew even if his faith falters. Different religions are different. What applies in one religion doesn't necessarily apply in another religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What do the sources say? If the sources say "Marx was Jewish" then we have the category, if they do not say this, we can't. This entire discussion above shows an almost complete lack of referenced, verifiable citations and far too much personal opinion. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As an additional comment, it is amazing how few articles are in the Category:Caucasian. If we are going to classify biographical articles by race, why not start with adding this one? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

about this: "Atheism is very commonplace among Jews (just as it is among any group of people). Judaism posits the existence of G-d. But a person remains a Jew even if his faith falters"

Well, that's the same with catholicism too by the way. Once catholic, always catholic! (once baptized that is)

This is what the Church teaches and yet twice as many as not are not on board. That is because the Catholic Church counts its number differently. If you are baptized Catholic or converted as an adult, you are Catholic and there by have certain rights within the Church. You don't have to be an active Catholic to be Catholic, you don't have to be a good Catholic to be Catholic. Even if you are excommunicated, you are still Catholic. You cannot receive the sacraments but you can and should still go to mass so long as you are not creating a disturbance. The excommunicated also always has the right to seek reconciliation. This is why Catholics define and count their numbers this way and make no claim that just because you Catholic, you are going to heaven. It is a different mindset.

Even if you don't practice the faith and are an "atheist" - you are still a catholic by the church.

If wikipedia would apply the same rules to catholics as it does to jews, then there would be a lot more people with a "catholic" label.

Catholic baptism is almost as strict as Judaistic laws:

"The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

"The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

As I said, if Marx is still a Jew in the English Wikipedia, then Wikipedia should be as thorough with the catholic label too, and label much more people as catholics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.8.104 (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

But that's a false premise -- Catholocism allows people to leave, whereas Judaism does not. See Mary McCarthy. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Judaism has no power of compulsion over people who no longer consider themselves Jews, whatever its pretensions. It cannot "allow" or "forbid" people to leave the religion, this is a meaningless statement. RolandR (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be incorrect -- Judaism can make demands upon its constituents and it does -- that's sort of the entire point of this discussion. Therefore, it is not a meaningless statement. Marx, as well as Jeroboam and former Archbishop of Paris Jean-Marie Lustiger, were all Jewish from birth and remained Jewish until their death, and God will demand of them why they did not put tefillin on every morning, despite their complete denial of the authenticity of their own Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia, I'm afraid, doesn't and can't care - anymore than it will recognise the Mormon's claims to baptise people after they are dead, as has already been mentioned. Our guidlines are ", people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And on and on we go. Again I return to the question of how we define "jewishness". If we are defining it as an ethnicity Marx was born into the ethnicity, and counts. If we define it as a religion; well he renounced religion - both Judaism and Lutherinism - and so doesn't count.

It is completely irrelevant that the jewish faith "doesn't allow" people to leave the faith. After all, we wouldn't count posthumously baptized holocaust victims as Mormons, would we? it's the same thing.Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx's father converted to a Prussian state religion of Lutheranism in order to continue working as a lawyer. It is not uncommon (historically) for Jews to convert to Christianity under duress. Nevertheless Judaism does not recognize conversion out of itself. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true. My point is that it doesn't matter what Judaism recognizes. What matters is that Marx would not identify as a member of the Jewish faith. He also wouldn't identify as a member of the Lutheran faith. As such, unless we are addressing Judaism as an ethnicity rather than a faith he doesn't fit the category. Of course it is possible to treat Judaism as an ethnicity in which case he does fit the category. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Marx (nor any other Jew) need "identify as a member of the Jewish faith" in order to be a Jew. This is especially true and understandable in an environment in which there are negative consequences associated with being a Jew. The home that Marx grew up in was situated in a country with a state religion. That state religion was not Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Marx, as an adult, did not identify as a member of that faith either. Nor did he identify as an Anglican when he moved to the UK. Frankly Marx seemed not to care much for religion in general. He seemed slightly (very slightly) more sympathetic to Judaism than to other religions but, honestly, I think it's dishonest to categorize him as being religiously jewish. Just as (returning to my previous example) it would be dishonest to categorize posthumously baptized holocaust victims as Mormon. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My point in restarting this was that I found that Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin have a text, "Why the Jews?" explicitly states that Marx was a Jew: "Prager, D; Telushkin, J. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983. page 137-150." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And to state that an assertion to this effect retroactively disrupts the balance of Catholicism-related personalities -- that's really not my concern. I have a reliable source for Judaism, and I'm not a primary scholar of Lutheranism, so I won't discuss Lutheranism. These are the rules of Judaism -- this is like complaining that there are or are not similar articles as a basis for complaining against the existence of another article, which we all know doesn't hold water. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT seems to be happening a bit here. The issue is that it doesn't matter if a jewish scholar posthumously decided that Marx was religiously jewish. He did not identify that way and thus did not. If there are atheists listed as Catholics that should be dealt with too. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Whether or not these are "the rules of Judaism" is irrelevant; they are not the rules of Wikipedia. The Mormons baptise dead people retrospectively; but we don't therefore amend their biographies to describe them as Mormons. Scientology apparently maintains that we are all immortal thetans who have forgotten our true nature; but we can't go round amending every biography to redefine people as lost thetans. In the same way, we cannot insist on describing people as Jewish, despite their own declared religion or ethnicity, whatever some religious Jews might believe. This is an encyclopaedia, not a religious court. Your belief that a supernatural entity, who you call God, will sit in judgement on people and condemn them for their failure to observe his arbitrary commands is viewed by many of us as no less of a fantasy than the beloiefs of Scientiologists or Mormons. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument I provided above was merely meant to counter your argument -- but I was neither involved in the previous discussion and, apparently, there was no reliable source to the contrary of your opinion. But now that a reputable source has been provided that Marx was Jewish, it can be verifiably asserted that, although Marx denied his Jewish heritage (already alluded to in the article) and spoke ill of the Jews and their religion (also included, and this time overtly), he was, in fact, one himself (now, included in the article). The approach taken to devalue religious positions are quite irrelevant, whether or not one agrees (I happen to agree with you on most of your assertions, by the way) because that is not the true debate -- it is only what has spun out of the actual argument over whether or not Marx's Jewishness can be supported by reliable documentation. And it now has been. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Judaism doesn't allow people to leave?" Uh, and where is the Judaism court or police who enforce this? Marx was baptized. He was not jewish. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your strawman argument is without merit. No one mentioned any enforcement. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

{ec}{undent} The disagreement hinges over the fact that we don't see the documentation as reliable. As religious identification is a personal matter, when a third party source contradicts the figure in question we should go with the words of the figure, not the words of the third party. Marx said he was Atheist. So he wasn't jewish, regardless of what a jewish scholar said. Likewise, we report Salman Rushdie's religion based on how he personally describes it. We also handle the Religious views of Albert Einstein with the subtelty they deserve. So why would we accept a single primary source saying "born jewish therefore jewish" as more reliable than Marx's own extensive discussion on topics of religion and atheism? Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidently, this is a very contentious issue. I surmise that it would not be nearly as contentious had Marx attained a PhD, then subsequently denied the value of higher education and renounced his PhD, yet I quoted the university yearly report that indeed asserts his earning the doctorate. Religion will do this (generate controversy), I suppose, but that is no reason to belittle the source I provided. My source is independent, written by two well-known Jewish authors (and Dennis Prager is, himself, as I understand, no longer observant) and no less authoritative than any source save, perhaps, for Marx's autobiography (and even this can be disputed, as Marx is certainly biased, but then again, everyone is biased). The point is that his antisemitism is largely purported to have been triggered by his having been a Jew (and by that, i do not assert that he was and then wasn't, but rather, that is is now dead -- yet I will save my personal religious views for my synagogue) -- it is therefor quite relevant that he was Jewish. This entire circle of "he was -- but then he wasn't -- but he must be -- but he said so -- but it's not recognized -- but who cares -- but he is -- but the Mormons -- etc." is tedious, I agree. Certainly the mention as I have edited it last is not obtrusive -- it's not as though I redid the initial paragraph as, "Marx, the Jewish German thinker...", attempting to overdo it. But the fact remains that it is contested whether or not he was Jewish (based on many factors) and either there should be a new section on it because, as I said, unlike someone like Kate Capshaw (whose Jewishness doesn't really matter outside her husband's and children's relationships with God), Marx's Jewishness is said to have some effect on his philosophy. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your WP:BOLD changes to the article with regards to Marx's (to you) contentious religious status. I don't see, from this talk page, that the consensus supports overt references to Marx as Jewish per-say.Simonm223 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion seems to be focused to much on the truth of the matter, rather than what sources say. According to some definitions and sources he was (forever) Jewish, but this describes only a minority of reliable sources. So neutrality dictates that we at most mention this point of view; we can't use them to say he was Jewish, period. Equally, he does not belong in German/Ashkenazi Jews categories; categorization requires that the category apply unambiguously and uncontroversially. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Religion: "For a dead person, there must be a verified general consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." We could say he was Jewish until age 6 and put him in such a category if it existed, but not more than that.John Z (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Such categories do exist. They are the applicable categories of Jews. The 6 year old was Karl Marx. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable, verifiable sources for Marx being a Jew

"The association of Jews with revolutionary doctrines and ideological social upheaval has not, unfortunately, been the product of antisemites' imaginations. The names Marx...and others come immediately to mind.Dennis Prager, Joseph Telushkin, Why the Jews?, page 60.
"It is true that Marx converted to Christianity at the age of six. But this was a pro forma conversion done by his father to avoid Prussian anti-Jewish legislation. Marx was an atheist and opponent of religion who did not consider himself a Christian, and was regarded by his opponents, both in his own time and until today, as a Jew." Ibid., notes to the above citation, page 204
"Marx was baptized a Lutheran when he was six years old. His father...baptized his children so that they would not suffer from antisemitism. It was into this self-denying world that Karl Marx was born. Ibid. page 137.
Adolf Hitler stated that he learned from Marx's essay, On the Jewish Question: "It is quite enough that the scientific knowledge of the danger of Judaism is gradually deepened and that every individual on the basis of this knowledge begins to eliminate the Jew within himself, and I am very much afraid that this beautiful thought originates from non other than a Jew." Julius Carlebach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism page 355-56.
"Marx...experienced the emergence of Jewish socialism as a vexation, for thereby the legitimacy of his system, into which he had...forced Judaism was made questionable, and his alibi destroyed and he himself again brought into association with his Judaism." Arnold Kunzli, Karl Marx-Eine Psychographie, page 209 cited in Leon Poliakov The History of Anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner page 556 note 148.
Marx pointed to his Jewish heritage as a factor in his own intellectual creativity: "Something which has been an eyesore to me from birth, as the Jews have been to the Christian world, and which persists and develops with the eye is not an ordinary sore, but a wonderful one, one that really belongs to my eye and must even contribute to a highly original development of my eyesight." Note 11 asserts that fifty years later Marx’s daughter, Eleanor, would insist on restoring her father’s Jewish identity. Karl Marx, Abram Leon and the Jewish Question—a reappraisal
"Karl Marx was not only Jewish, he was descended from an established rabbinical family. His father had abandoned the practice of Judaism in order to function more freely in and with the newly established Prussian state, and in order to attract more clients to his law practice. Biographers do agree that age-old Jewish traditions continued to run deep in Herschel Marx's family long after he had ceased attending the synagogue. Karl Marx probably had no formal ties with Judaism, but he was acutely aware of its theology and its traditions. Lack of formal practice cannot here be equated with ignorance. Indeed, Karl Marx apparently had studied the bases of all Western religions throughout his life." Karl Marx: Anti-Semite
"Marx was a bourgeois Jew from a predominantly Catholic city within a country whose official religion was evangelical Protestantism." Karl Marx: a life By Francis Wheen
"After all, Karl Marx, himself, was a Jew." Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker: Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx, May 28, 2008

Consensus, it seems, was established without concern for the available documentation. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article notes Marx's Jewish background; this is not contentious. The issue here is whether to define and categorise him as a Jew. The consensus would seem to be that this is inappropriate, since Marx himself did not so define himself. RolandR (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A nonobservant Jew in an anti-Jewish environment would tend not to "define himself" as a Jew. The above sources make reference to the "self denying" world such an individual lives in. The above sources state the reason for conversion: "to avoid Prussian anti-Jewish legislation."

One would be denying extenuating circumstances to insist that Marx was not a Jew given the reality that a nonobservant Jew displays few outward signs of Jewishness in any case, and doing so in an antisemitic environment would only be inviting trouble upon oneself. Bus stop (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your counterarguments are mere original research in the face of the examples I've listed. All either make explicit reference to Marx having been a Jew or explicit allusion to it (in that they do not contain the sentence "Marx was a Jew." As it is so exceedingly doubtful that their wording "...was a Jew" refers to him having been a Jew prior to his conversion, but rather, refers to him currently being dead, I see no reason why overt mention of him having been a Jew (and not just that he was born a Jew) should be included in the article. In posting, please respond to this issue, rather than the perceived issue of what Marx felt and what Marx thought -- multiple verifiable, reliable sources have thus been provided that Marx was a Jew. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

None of thse sources make Marx Jewish. Please remember the core of our NPOV policy: Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. What is verifiable is not that marx "was" a Jew - it is not for Wikipedia to decid what Marx was. What Wikipedia articles do is present different views. DRosenbach has demonstrated that there are many who have viewed marx as jewish. That does not make Marx Jewish. The Nazis considered anyone with a Jewish grandparent jewish. That only means the Nazis viewd that person as jewish (other Jews and the prson him or herself could easily not have considere themselves Jewish). In this case it looks like most people who have held this view have been anti-Semies. So we can say that many anti-Semites have viewed Marx as a Jew. But that is the only thing that these sources demonstrate. This is not an important enugh view o put in the led; it belongs in a section on marx and anti-Semitism, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Which of the above sources, besides the one including a quote from Adolf Hitler, would you consider "antisemitic?" Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing out that number 7 above is from the Journal of Historical Review, which is a publication devoted to holocaust denial, and not a reliable source.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have sad, a view held by people who were anti-Semitic, or who believed that he converted because of anti-Semitism. For all I knowsome people say he was a Jew because they are proud of being Jewish. The fact remains: at Wikipedia, all we have are views not truth. It is an agreed fact that Marx was baptized. It is an agreed fact that he never affiliated or identified with a Jewish community, wherever he lived. There is evidence that he sympathized with Jewish victims of anti-Semitism, although one need not be Jewish to do that. These are basic facts I think everyone agrees on, cetainly any historian or biographer of Marx. As to whether marx "was"a Jew, though, that is a view and must be presented as such. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Slrubenstein. We don't go by the one-drop rule or the Nuremberg laws when categorizing people here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Slrubenstein. This is an accurate summation of the situation. Simonm223 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

theroists, marx, durkheim and weber

each of the classical theorists worried about the consequences of the division of labour - Maex in terms of alienation, Weber in terms of rationalisation and Durkheim in terms of anomies. can someone elaborate on this please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.92.26 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot said about rationalization and its relationship with modernity to be found in the classical sociological texts, as well as in the work of Adorno, Bauman, and Habermas. But this is not a forum. --Tomsega (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But these views can be discussed either in Capitalism or Modernity. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Herman Arnold Acosta

Why is Karl Marx named Herman Arnold Acosta in this article?121.97.56.2 (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Awful "Notable Ideas" section and "Influenced" section

The notable ideas section of Marx seems wholly insubstantial to convey to readers the essence of Marx's study and what he is actually notable for in academia. Instead of "notable ideas" it currently seems to be "those ideas of Marx most familiar to a high school or college student with a brief knowledge of his work".

Therefore we currently have:

Notable ideas Co-founder of Marxism (with Engels), surplus value, alienation and exploitation of the worker, The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, materialist conception of history

Where I would propose:

Dialectical Materialism
Historical Materialism
A Critique of Political Economy (surplus-value, mode of production, relations of production, commodity fetishism)
Ideology (as in ruling class ideology)
Dictatorship of the Proletariat

I would reject the idea of Marxism as one of his notable ideas as Marxism is the name given to his notable ideas, he didn't place these ideas into a specifically coherent ideology which he named Marxism. And of course in a discussion with French socialists who refereed to themselves as Marxists we see a scepticism I think around the use of the term.

Also lets try and be abit objective and serious about who Marx influenced. Instead of letting any random member of tedious socialist party to put their favourites in. Its currently:

Influenced[hide] Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir, Luxemburg, Bakunin, Lukács, Gramsci, Korsch, Arendt, Jean Francois Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Debord, Frankfurt School, Negri, Taussig, Roy, Bookchin

Surely we could group Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Bukharin (who is currently ignored but who was a considerable theorist) into just the Bolsheviks. Then Castro and Guevara? Castro is in my view hardly a major Marxist, and Guevara was more than anything a Stalinist anti-colonialist etc. Then we come to Bakunin.. hardly someone influenced by Marx considering the split in the 1st international was due to complete disagreement between the two. I would then say Korsch, Arendt and Jean Francois Lyotard are taking up space, and Foucaults work is a complete rejection of Marx as he himself asserted on numerous occasions, he flirted with it earlier in his life, but realistically he has no place on the list.

What we need I think is a more concise and accurate list which can portray the evolution of thought that Marx has influenced.

Friedrich Engels, Karl Kautsky, Bolsheviks (Lenin . Stalin . Trotsky . Bukharin), Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, Georg Lukacs, Frankfurt School, Communist Party Historians Group, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Mao, Che Guevara, Louis Althusser, Etienne Balibar, Jacques Ranciere, Ernesto Laclau, Derrida, Slavoj Zizek

This is just a brief skeleton and im sure theres room for some addition and subtraction and it is certainly euro-centric. However for someone approaching Marx it seems to me to contain the major schools of Marxist thought over the last 2 centuries in as concise a way as possible. --Charlesbrophy (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Trotsky was a Menschevick. He only joined Lenin when the revolution was a reality. He was never well-accepted by the Bolschevicks, as history all too sadly revealed. Against longstanding Bolshevicks he formed the Left Opposition and was eventually booted out. Otherwise, i think this idea has merit. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

At a certain factual level you're very right however to just quote from the Bolshevik article on Wikipedia we can take "The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin, were an organization of professional revolutionaries under a democratic internal hierarchy governed by the principle of democratic centralism, who considered themselves as the vanguard of the revolutionary working class of Russia. Their beliefs and practices were often referred to as Bolshevism. Bolshevik revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky frequently used the terms "Bolshevism" and "Bolshevist" after his exile from the Soviet Union to differentiate between what he saw as true Leninism and the regime within the state and the party which arose under Stalin.". So the Bolsheviks for me are simply a group of individuals who stand immediately in relation to Marxism-Leninism. Charlesbrophy (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the linke you quote have a veifiable source? It sound to me like a sloppy way to make sense of a complex situation.Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with these criticisms by User:SLrubenstien. Excellent summation of the obvious, glaring lack of rigor of these sections as they currently stand. Thank you for your contribution. (209.6.40.219 (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

contribution to "London" on transition to socialism in Russia

Recently a contribution was written to the section London by WellsSouth. Very interesting, but I think it does not fit in here. Apart from that it uses only primary sources. Greetz, Dick Bos (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

German philosopher

I think the category German philosophers should be added to this article on Karl Marx. 141.84.69.20 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

philosophy section

why is there no edit tab on this page? the entire section on Marx's thought is unsupported, and i'm sorry some of the claims seem a bit crude to me, even for an encyclopedia. take for example the claim in this section re "Marx's understanding of religion" -

"'Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.'

Whereas his Gymnasium senior thesis argued that religion had as its primary social aim the promotion of solidarity, here Marx sees the social function of religion in terms of highlighting/preserving political and economic inequality."

[i don't have the text on hand, but i think this is the full quote: "Religious suffering is at the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, the embryonic criticism of this vale of tears, of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not in order that man shall bear the chain without caprice or consolation but so that he shall cast off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man so that he will think, act and fashion his reality like as a man who has lost his illusions and regained his reason; so that he will revolve about himself as his true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun about which man revolves so long as he does not revolve about himself."] --67.84.35.181 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

website

i want to add this [1] to the external links section.--67.84.35.181 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's not appropriate to add this link on this page. There is a link on Marxism already. Dick Bos (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Karl Marx. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Missing book in the Marx's bibliography

I can't find The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850 --190.51.253.245 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Life Chronology of Karl Marx

I think a detailed calendar life chronology of Karl Marx would be very interesting and illuminating..

in the form of Date-Event-Description(brief..)from birth to death..This would include life milestones such as wedding, birth of and death of children, publishing dates, speech's etc. in a linear time line. I myself have tried twice to start this but the article stub was DELETED Twice!! What really huffs my chicken even more is that the second attempt I used the format exactly of The Chronology of Jesus article.... Jesus at Wikipedia is worthy but Karl Marx is not..Perhaps someone with some clout could start this article as I am convinced it would be immensely use full and help any one interested to see this person in a new bright light for good or ill...Hoping to contribute to this article soon.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

mensheviks

i dont know much about all this, but what are the mensheviks in relationship to the bolsheviks and marxism? i mean what happened to them, were they not also students of karl marx? thank you. Decora (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

have you tried reading the Wikipedia article on the mensheviks? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Did the social structure and behaviour of bees and their colonies influence MARX's works?

I am interested to know of any historical evidence that links Marx and his work with bees and their colonies, structure or social behaviour. Those in the know please advise me accordingly. Thank you. Martin-the-bee (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

From my knowledge Karl Marx based his ideas off primitive society's more then animals. However I would advise finding a second opinion

Marx mentions bees in Das Kapital Buch I Chapter VII, P. 198.." a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells..." (I know that because I skipped class and READ THE TEXT!)--Oracleofottawa (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How did Shakespeare influence Karl Marx?

Last time I checked neither socialism nor capitalism (Or at least in a modern form) Existed in Shakespeare's time. And considering Marx's hatred for "Bourgeois" or "Reactionary" Culture I am sure that he had many negative things to say about Shakespeare. So can some one prove to me that Shakespeare influenced Karl Marx before I remove it?

(Onthehook edited this by the way, I forgot to log in when I made this entry.)

Marx certainly did not hate "bourgeois culture", and was a great admirer of Shakespeare. His daughter Eleanor noted that "He read the whole of Homer, the whole Nibelungenlied, Gudrun, Don Quixote, the Arabian Nights, etc. As to Shakespeare, he was the Bible of our house, and seldom out of our hands or mouths. By the time I was six, I knew scene upon scene of Shakespeare by heart." Many other friends and acquaintances mention his love of Shakespeare. His writings are full of references to and quotes from Shakespeare, and several books have been written on this. Marx regarded Shakespeare's work as one of the greatest human achievements, and the reference in the article is perfectly appropriate. Do not remove it! RolandR (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You have provided enough evidence, So I shall keep it there. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

There are a number of references of Shakespeare in Capital Volume I, see page 862...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx being an atheist

So shouldn't we have this line in his infobox, the fact that he obviously an atheist himself? I know there are the atheist... tags associated with this page, but having it in the infobox itself I think would be helpful. Children of the dragon (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx was a Christian. There is no reference I know of that he states that he does not believe in a Supreme Being...If there is please write it in.. Most of these "facts" exist from the Cold War myths that we were and are still taught in school....and I believed them myself until I read the text for myself...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OracleofOttawa may have a point. It follows what was said by Bible Exegesis Professor José P. Miranda, in his book El Cristianismo de Marx (Mexico City: SCM, 1978; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1980). Chapter 8, "The Gospel Roots of Marx's Thought," and Chapter 9, "Marx's Thought as a Conscious Continuation of Early Christianity" cite that Karl Marx was a Christian and thus described himself as "a good Christian," p 225. "Marx was baptized in Trier in 1824," p 226.

"His high school paper of 1835 on a passage from St. John's Gospel (MEW/EB 1:598-601) demonstrates that Marx was not only baptized but did in fact hold the Christian faith," p 226.

"Marx clearly identifies his movement with early Christianity," p 227. And "we can readily see Marx's desire that the communist movement imitate primitive Christianity . . .," p 227.

Marx's "1872 speech makes it quite clear that there is a conscious and basic identity between authentic Christianity and Marx's movement in their efforts to establish the heavenly kingdom on earth," p 229.

Marx said, "Here, then is the simple and definitive solution . . . the necessity of erecting a free and independent Christian state . . . ," p 230. Smokedoctor (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 9 July 2010

If this cherry-picking of half phrases from unidentified works by Marx is typical of the scholarship of this professor, then his conclusions are worthless. This is not remotely a reliable source, and to insert any of this in the article would be way beyond original research; it would be rubbish collection. RolandR (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

From the Economic and Philosophical manuscripts, on atheism: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism" (for Marx of course it cannot end there, becauswe for Marx and Englels beliefs - including a belief that there is no God - are epiphenomenal; Marx doesn't care about belief so much as conscious action)

From Capital: "The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature."

On the Church of England, form a letter to Engels: "It is an old and historically established maxim that obsolete social forces, nominally still in possession of all the attributes of power and continuing to vegetate long after the basis of their existence has rotted away, inasmuch as the heirs are quarrelling among themselves over the inheritance even before the obituary notice has been printed and the testament read -- that these forces once more summon all their strength before their agony of death, pass from the defensive to the offensive, challenge instead of giving way, and seek to draw the most extreme conclusions from premises which have not only been put in question but already condemned. Such is today the English oligarchy. Such is the Church, its twin sister. Countless attempts at reorganization have been made within the Established Church, both the High and the Low, attempts to come to an understanding with the Dissenters and thus to set up a compact force to oppose the profane mass of the nation. There has been a rapid succession of measures of religious coercion. The pious Earl of Shaftesbury, formerly known as Lord Ashley, bewailed the fact in the House of Lords that in England alone five millions had become wholly alienated not only from the Church but from Christianity altogether. Compelle intrare, replies the Established Church. It leaves it to Lord Ashley and similar dissenting, sectarian and hysterical pietists to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for it." Obsolete? Vegetative? Death throws?

Many Catholic priests who preached Liberation Theology were tortured and killed for being marxists, and John Paul II was a vocal anti-Marxist, so we should be sympathetic to those Latin American priests who try to paint Marx as a kind of Christian; they are only trying to do what they view as God's work, without getting killed (or banned from teaching). That does not makes them reliable scholars on Marx.

And there is no way one can write good encyclopedia articles without putting statements and sources in their context. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

References?--Oracleofottawa (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jose P. Miranda was quite possibly one of the greatest Marx Scholars of the 20th century. He does not have an article in Wikipedia. As a Jesuit he was "fast tracked" and he was destined for the position of Father General; if you read his CV between the lines...but he spoke the truth and they destroyed him. If one of you users from South America is tired of seeing your Karl Marx page edits being rubbed out all the time, why not better deploy your time and do the Miranda article and the other Liberation Theologists?--Oracleofottawa (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A little more bio, a lot less about Marxism?

I added an admittedly WP:SYNTH-y bit about Marx's dabblings in the stock market in later life, though that's never been fully substantiated. In skimming the rest of the bio, it struck me that it could use a little more biography, and is almost entirely redundant with other articles where it talks about Marxism. Most of the Criticisms section isn't about criticism of Marx as a person, but criticisms of Marxism(s). Why not leave that kind of thing mostly to the article Marxism, with the reasonable exception of cases where Marx himself responded to a criticism?

Case in point: look at all the paragraphs in section London starting at "In a letter to Vera Zasulich dated March 8, 1881 ...." to the end of the section. Fascinating stuff, definitely relevant to the whole issue of historical stages and what Marx did or did not think or believe about them, certainly should be included in some relevant article, but in the end, biographically, it's just a bit of idle late-life speculation on Marx's part. I see no reason to give it any more weight in this bio than his letter to Lion Philip about opportunities for momentum trading in U.S. and British stock markets. It's headed "London", it starts in London during the last years of Marx's life, but ends up in Russia decades after he's dead. Toto, I don't think we're in London anymore.Yakushima (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree we should make a clear distinction between what Marx clearly believed and "Marxism," a system of thought in his name but not necessarily what he thought. I agree with your point about the criticisms section. But I do not agree about your second point. A biography is not or should not be a narrative of everything that is known about a person. Wikipedia has clear notability and weight policies - content should be added because it has due weight. Marx is a notable character because of his revolutionary work and his analysi sof capitalism. Any biographical detail relevant to these belongs in th article. Does other biographical material belong? Friend, you have to make a case for that. I certainly would not veto more biographical material, but it has to have a purpose, it has to have value. Why is the letter about trading opportunities in US and Brittish markets significant? I honestly do not see why. There are volumes of letters he wrote; we cannot include even summaries of all of them. So what criteria do you propose? Relevance to revolutionary politics, theories of communism and capitalism, I thin this is obvious. I am open to other criteria, but before we go ahead and add trivial details willy-nilly can we discuss inclusion criteria first? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"A biography is not or should not be a narrative of everything that is known about a person." Isn't that putting words in my mouth, just a little? If Marx had enough money to throw around in later life, pointing out that he seems to have put some in the stock market is hardly a bad way to underscore the point. That it was the money of a comrade from earlier in life, who had willed his entire state to Marx, is hardly irrelevant either. Read the source: his wit is in evidence. Is it notable? Two biographies (Red Jenny and Marx: A Life) take note of it. Yakushima (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentences on Marx' activities in the stock-market. The reference was totally nonsense (linking to "mushrooms" etc...). But I do agree that more biography is needed and less sections like the "London and the mir" parts. Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your reversion and added a further citation, one that includes a link to a posting by Louis Proyect to the Marxism mailing list in 2004, in which he quotes extensively not only from recent popular press, but from Francis Wheen's "Karl Marx: a Life". Marx's "mushroom" refers to bubble conditions in markets. This is multiply-sourced, from Marx's own correspondence. You can see more of his letter at the link into the mailing list archive. Whether Marx actually engaged in trades or not is worthy of speculation (as it were), since it's reported to be thought by some (um, yeah? ^[who?]) that he might simply have been trying to impress somebody. Reverting my edit also removed all reference to Wilhelm Wolff. He was a former comrade and the person whose inheritance made Marx and his family decidedly comfortable. Writing him out of Marx's biography seems a little hasty. Yakushima (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Whether Marx actually engaged in trades or not is worthy of speculation." Maybe, maybe not, but definitely not here, this would violate WP:NOR. Moreover, multiple attribution is not ina nd of itself sufficient to prove sifficient significance to merit inclusion. I support more biography in principle, but additions must comply with WP:NOR and WP:WEIGHT or they will be deleted. How Marx supported his family is I believe relevant. "Apparently" is a dead giveaway that the clause does not belong in Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoa: where did I propose that Marx's WP bio was any kind of place to speculate about whether Marx actually engaged in stock trades? It was just an off-hand observation I made on this talk page, in the course of a discussion about how the article might be improved. Could you move your index finger off the hair trigger just a wee bit?

My "apparently" was a way to express that had Marx claimed to his uncle that he'd engaged in highly profitable short-term speculation even though there's no historical record of trades (which you can verify for your self if you'll bother to look at easily-found sources.) If the fact of Marx's boast merits mention, a better word than "apparently" might be in order. Fine with me. Sometimes I polish and correct, sometimes I contribute facts and let others polish and correct. Here I did the latter. How would you say it better than "apparently", when it's something Marx verificably said he did, but that nobody has clear documentation for him actually doing?

I wouldn't say it at all. In this case I would just follow policy, and skip making the claim at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, both sources are pretty worthless. For one thing, we do not consider a message board or listserve a reliable source, but even going to the BBC, Sue Laurence simply is not a respected marx biographer and her views are not notable enough to be included in this article. Snippets from some online search are worthless; we do not know the reliability of the source and cannot read enough of it to know the full context for the quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly? Louis Proyect, quoting at length from Francis Sheen's biography, which quotes at length from Marx's own correspondence, is not at least a hint that there's something to this story? When Proyect quotes from it, is he utterless worthless as a source? I have started looking through biographies of Marx via Google books, and I'm finding more books that mention this, e.g., Karl Marx: an illustrated biography, Werner Blumenberg, p.109 [2] Hmmm. So let's do Google Books search on "Marx" plus a phrase in the paragraph from the letter that somebody who might be Proyect is quoting as he quotes somebody who might be Francis Wheen except that mailing lists are so unreliable and .... whoa! look at this: [3] Half a dozen more books turn up! Which probably means there are yet more books that mention this letter of Marx's to his uncle somewhat more elliptically. What? None could possibly be scholarly enough? Well, how about Rethinking Marxism? [4]. If Routledge isn't good enough for you, what is? Yakushima (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I "looked at" it. What a waste of time. This is what I found:

... I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating*/partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimagin- able joint stock enterprise), are forced up to a quite ...

That is what you consider a sufficient source for an encyclopedia article? I have no idea what this link you provided means. There are two issues. One is original research. OR is OR and we say no to it, period. However, if you are saying you have found a reliable and respected secondary source (e.g. an article in Rethinking Marxism) that makes a persuasive argument that Marx supported his family in part through speculative investing, sure, fine, add it. Just because the sources you provided before weren't appropriate does not mean I think you are incapabl of finding appopriate sources. If you actually read the entire article in the Rethinking Marxism article and find in it valuable information for the article, by all means add it with a proper citation. But a link to a fragment out of context is useless. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, and understand the sources correctly (which include the collected correspondence of Marx and Engels, by the way), Marx *himself* is not a reliable source about whether he was speculating in the stock market at the time? I've now given you links showing many citations of this letter, and no reputable scholar has disputed that Marx wrote it. Just what IS the problem here? That you think Marx might have been lying? Yakushima (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I had no thoughts at all that Marx might be lying, until I read your comment, in which you report that he might be lying. I did not write this, you wrote this: "Whether Marx actually engaged in trades or not is worthy of speculation (as it were), since it's reported to be thought by some (um, yeah? [who?]) that he might simply have been trying to impress somebody." If what marx wrote is open to interpretation, we have to follow NOR carefully. By the way, I am not the person who first raised NOR concerns ... uh, again, you did (maybe you are having memory problems?): "I added an admittedly WP:SYNTH-y bit about Marx's dabblings in the stock market in later life, though that's never been fully substantiated." If you admit that what you added violates policy, or at the very least is problematic, then don't make that edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

While your at it, how about some mention of the manuscripts that are still unpublished? These are referred to in the introduction and foreword to the Penquin edition of the Grundrisse. Now why is that do you think? If you have ever owned a stock in your life, and if you have read Capital it soon dons on you that ole Karl was one shrewd stock picker! For example a surprising number of companys mentioned in Capital Volume I survived into our lifetime! (Can YOU NAME THREE?)(i)If you want to really understand capitalism you must read Marx.(ii)This man is way way more then some stateless, rag-ass revolutionary refugee.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)