Talk:Marxian economics

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


Earlier material for this talk page can be found at:

Improvements to ME article[edit]

1. Fix "Current theorizing in Marxian economics" section[edit]

This section needs some work. One of its problems is the list of "recent economists who have made significant contributions in the Marxian vein." Lists in articles tend to be problematic because they always beg the question of inclusion/exclusion. They are hard to maintain, as anyone can (and usually will) drop by and add their favorite name to the list. In short, they are hard to defend and hard to keep current. I suggest we eliminate the list and upgrade the section. If no one objects, I will begin by removing the list. Sunray 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The list of names is bad because of the inclusion/exclusion problem, and because Stalin had Rubin murdered almost 80 years ago, so he's hardly current. The list of schools and the list of journals suffer from the same inclusion/exclusion problem. The first paragraph of the section is good, though, IMO. andrew-the-k 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I recommend the deletion of Sunray's new sentence: "Marxian economics may be viewed not as an all-encompassing approach, but as one important element in an analytical toolset - perhaps part of a broader category of heterodox economics or radical political economy."
First, I think it has a weasel-words problem: "perhaps" and "may be viewed." (It may also be viewed as a sardine.)
Second, it has a serious neutrality problem, IMO, suggesting that ME may properly be viewed in this manner, though this is very contentious, partly because of the "analytical toolset" claim, partly because "all-encompassing approach" is a strawperson, IMO.
Third, although ME is part of heterodox economics, I don't think it is part of it, or of "radical political economy," in the sense that the sentence requires. The sentence is about (at the start) a theoretical and/or methodological approach, but heterodox and "radical political" economics aren't "broader" (or any) theoretical and/or methodological approaches.
Maybe the sentence can be fixed and made neutral; I don't know. Since I don't think it says much, especially on its own like this, I think it's better to delete it. A serious section on "current theorizing" won't be constructed sentence-by-sentence.
The sentence, however, functions to legitimize the list of schools that follows. I also recommend that this list be eliminated.
First, there's the inclusion/exclusion problem we talked about.
Second, none of the schools is an "academic Marxian or heterodox economics program[ ]," but this could be fixed.
Third, the phrase "academic Marxian or heterodox economics programs" is a catch-all. I'm not familiar with all of the departments, but among those I am familiar with, none has a program in ME as such. And there's very little ME in some of those mentioned. Once breadth is allowed, so that all heterodox programs are referred to, the list is very partial, excluding e.g., rightwing but non-mainstream programs.
Actually, I recommend deletion of the whole section and starting from scratch, though the 1st paragraph is fine with me. I don't think a competent and accurate section can be written under WP policies. A competent and accurate section cannot be written by those lacking substantial knowledge; someone who has the required knowledge would have to put in a LOT of work in order to get it right; and then all this work would immediately go down the drain because it will be mercilessly edited by people who don't understand it, or are pushing an agenda, or are adding trivia, etc. No one will agree to write a competent and accurate section under these rules. So unless an exception to the rules is made and the section is protected ad infinitum, it may be better to say nothing than to say what ain't so.
andrew-the-k 15:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sunray,
In your edit summary explaining your removal of my weasel-word, etc. tags, you wrote, "Suggest you just fix problems like weasel words rather than adding tags. And please, if I've gotten something wrong, Be Bold and fix it." But I don't understand the intended point well enough to fix it. It is much easier to flag a problem than to fix it. I could guess at your point and then outline various positions on what may be the issue in order to make the text balanced, but it'd be maybe 5-10 times as long as what you have and not terribly important, in my book. Also, I couldn't readily, if at all, provide evidence that this or that position is held by people, so why bother? Plus, I've recommended that the section be blanked and re-composed from the ground up. Plus, I really don't want to write stuff that will be, at best, mercilessly edited. I prefer to limit the nature of my contribution to this section to that of providing feedback. The text remains problematic, IMO. andrew-the-k 04:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Sunray's new sentence": The words in the section were not originally mine. All I did was edit them and add some ME schools -- it didn't make sense to have Amherst there by itself and no one seemed to be able to find a source to support it being the "leading" ME school.
Re: tags: Tags are a barrier to the reader and are at best a short-term thing. But I have to say I really don't understand the "weasel-word" tag. If an editor sees weasel words, why not take them out? That was all I did in my last edit, BTW.
As to blanking: If there is inaccurate info, let's take it out. If you don't like the list of schools, we can take that out (or add all the schools listed by, or do something else. You like the first paragraph, so do I. Let's add what seems appropriate and leave it at that. Sunray 09:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: I think that the article is better today than it was before. Thus, today, I think that Wikipedia works. I can see lots of things that can be further improved, so it is far from perfect. Sunray 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: AK's recent edits: Great. Now it is beginning to look like a reasonable section.Sunray 16:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Deal with neutrality issues in "Criticism" section[edit]

Some time ago (May 24, 2007 to be exact) Watchdog07 provided the following reasons for placing the neutrality tag on the "Criticism" section of this article:

Reasons for neutrality-section tag
a. there is a claim of consensus for which there is no consensus among scholars - "since internally inconsistent theories can not be right ...." A reliable source must be shown that there is consensus on this question. Andrew KLiman has his opinion, and that's OK if it was expressed as his opinion, but it is presented as a fact which there is no agreement that it is.
b. "suppression of Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research on it". This is an exceptional claim (the claim of suppression) and exceptional claims need exceptional sources. There is also a WP:BLP issue since some of those who Kliman implies have engaged in "suppression" are living persons.
c. having read the discussion on the David Laibman page, which was attacked by Andrew Kliman, I know that Laibman - a living person - would not agree that he should be described as someone who "allege that Marx has been proven internally inconsistent". He has offered alternative interpretations of Marx to those put forward by the "New Orthodox Marxists" (i.e. the proponents of the TSSI). This is quite different from Kliman's claim.
d. "Even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept, implicitly or explicitly ...." This is an exceptional claim, a claim of consensus (where none exists) and a claim which concerns living persons. It's also frankly ridiculous: there is no agreement by scholars about what they accept or do not accept regarding the TSSI. To claim otherwise, is not truthful.

Tags are warning flags for issues needing the attention of editors. They are usually of short duration. Since we have dealt with other issues raised on this page in May, could we now return to the neutrality tag? Sunray 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the previous work on this section, I believe that the concerns raised in Watchdog07's points "a" and "d" have been addressed (I know I can rely on him to correct me if I am wrong). Perhaps we could review the remaining two points:

b. Watchdog07 has suggested that the statement, "suppression of Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research on it," is an exceptional claim. Would wording such as "raises questions about Marx's critique..." be easier to defend?
c. A re-wording is implicit in the comments by Watchdog07: "... have offered alternative interpretations to those put forward by proponents of the TSSI." Would such a statement be adequate? Would there be a need to state what those alternative interpretations are?

In addition to the above, I think that the third paragraph ("Critics who have alleged...") could benefit from a more neutral wording. For example: "... economists... who wish the field to be grounded in their "correct" versions of Marxian economics" The word "wish" seems hard to verify—we don't know what they wish unless they have said "I wish," which I doubt is the case. The word "correct," in quotes, should perhaps be removed. Thoughts, suggestions? Sunray 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding b, the sentence is
Andrew Kliman argues that, since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, the inconsistency charges serve to legitimate the suppression of Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it, as well as the "correction" of Marx's alleged inconsistencies.
and a footnote follows. This is a neutral formulation, since it reports what an RS says without endorsing it. If a contrary statement by another RS can be found, it should be added as well. I don't know if any such contrary statement exists. David Laibman certainly likes to spin things his way, but I doubt that even he could actually disagree with what I argue here.
However, it seems that some readers misconstrue the sentence and that it might be revised to make it clearer to them. It is not a claim about the amount of suppression, and its not even about Marx's theories in particular. It is an explanation of the purpose and import of charges of internal inconsistency. Also, I'm not wedded to the word suppression. (For more on these points, please see the discussion under NPOV? on the TSSI talk page.)
I therefore suggest the following changed wording (without attributing it to any particular source, since it is generally accepted and indeed obvious):
Since internally inconsistent arguments cannot possibly be right, theories containing such arguments must be rejected or corrected. Thus, charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it.
"... raises questions about Marx's critique..." doesn't get at the specificity of internal consistency. Consistency isn't just one desirable property for a theory to have. It is a mimimum threshold requirement for it to be a legitimate theory at all. I think readers need to know this in order to understand what the fuss is about.
Regarding c, David Laibman does indeed charge that Marx left "us" with errors--see footnote 14. He also has an interpretation that differs from the TSSI, but that just isn't relevant to the sentence, which concerns the internal (in)consistency of Marx's own theory, as he himself presented it.
Regarding the word "wish," I agree that a change is needed. How about, "who propose that the field be grounded" instead of "who wish the field to be grounded"?
Regarding the word "correct," with quotation marks, this is actually a reference to the title of a paper by Bortkiewicz ("On the Correction of Marx's ...") that got the internal inconsistency bandwagon rolling. Also, "correct" with quotation marks is completely neutral. One side claims that its revisions to the original theory correct it--i.e. preserve its essence but make it logically sound. The other side claims that the original theory doesn't need to be corrected (because the supposed logical errors that have been identified aren't actually there), and therefore that the alleged corrections aren't actually corrections (of error or inconsistency), but alternative theories. To remove the quotation marks would be to take one side. If style is at issue here, I could live with "grounded in their allegedly correct versions".
andrew-the-k 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Andrew makes a case that the wording is, by and large, neutral. I actually think that his original wording for "b" is preferable to his suggested re-wording. He further suggests "who propose that the field be grounded" instead of "wish." I agree with that and, if no one objects, will make that change.
Perhaps we could get a comment from Watchdog07 as to what other changes he would suggest so that we can remove the "neutrality" tag. Sunray 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hearing none, I have made the change suggested above and removed the "neutrality" tag. Sunray 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rubentomas (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Hello User:Bobrayner I find lack of neutrality in Criticism when referring Klinman without clarifying first that his work is against theories of inconsistency, not the opposite. I simply expanded Klinman's reference so the reader wouldn't have to scroll down to find about the paper's title.

Reference tags[edit]

Hello User:Spylab, I took your "unreferenced" tags off sections where references to Capital are given. Some of these are in the supporting quotes; some are in parentheses right in the text. I think putting the references right in the text is better than sticking them in a note at the bottm of the page if the reference can be brief enough not to clutter the text; it makes it more accessible.

I may take the "cleanup" tag off "Labour" soon too, after I add some things to it. If you still think it's messy or unclear, I would appreciate yor comments on where or how to improve it. -- User:Gonji ha, January 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

Also, the reason I bold-face terms the first time they appear is so that readers can use this as sort of a glossary to the key -- and to the uninitiated, mysterious -- terms in Marxian economics. The bolding makes terms easier to locate. -- User:Gonji ha —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

  • I re-added the unreferences tags because there are no footnotes in those sections. I unbolded the words you bolded, because in Wikipedia, that's not what bolding is for.Spylab (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There aren't footnotes, but there are references. So why call it unreferenced? Surely any reasonable format is OK? Next point: what is bolding for? -- User:Gonji ha, February 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
  • I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines that are linked on your talk page, as well as read a bunch of Wikipedia articles, to see how the pages are supposed to look, and how they are supposed to be referenced.Spylab (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Marxist Political Economy[edit]

The title of this article should be "Marxist Political Economy", since political economy is the name of the science, and "economics" is the invented term by bourgeois vulgar economists to deny the scientific nature of political economy. In this sense "Marxian economics" is very misleading title.北東北国際 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Created a redirect for this. Marxist political-economic model already points to the topic main. Lycurgus (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Marxian economics[edit]

This article has suffered a great deal because people have meddled with it who are either sectarians, or Marxist enthusiasts without any relevant qualifications or experience in the field. In China, "Marxist political economy" may be the norm, but in the West, "Marxian economics" is a quite acceptable label for a branch of heterodox economics. The article should be revised by a knowledgeable professional in the field who is not subject to sectarian bias, or the original versions should be restored. It is sad that good contributions to the article in the past have been lost, because somebody thought they would change the content to their own liking. Emotionally this may be satisfying to the writer but it does not help the reader of the article intending to learn more about the topic - this article is now so bad that it would turn anybody that reads it off the topic altogether. User:Jurriaan 20:25 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion would not seem to be worth much as there seemed to be a general consensus before and after your last permanent adieu that you were a pushy troll with a superficial understanding of the subject matter in question. Perhaps you can reenter a community dialog at Commodity Fetishism and we can see where things stand now. However judging by above same ole same ole. Also the archives should be moved to the normal namespace (archive_n). Lycurgus (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking briefly at your userspace and recalling the matter at the other article see that you present the officious profile of a Mandarin with less than full credentials and perhaps also of less than stellar level of general intelligence seeking to assert somekina expertise in a blanket fashion, ironically the same complaint that SIRubenstein lodged against you at the other article you now make here. It looks like you've put a lot a time in articles in this space, that you're active again and there's certainly nothing wrong with that, if you can work constructively and objectively with others, but you're not like a priest shaman of Marxism that can impose your subjective judgement on matters, your specially determined reception of everything as in "Marxian economics" vs "Marxian political-economy" above. This body of knowledge above all is open to anyone who is willing to put the effort into reading and understanding the source materials. There are a relatively large number of such persons at this point whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not, certainly in the many tens if not hundreds of thousands as a minimum, depending on the specified degree of proficiency/understanding, not for that matter counting pro forma sets such as the 70 million members of the Chinese communist party. If there are specific issues these must be addressed specifically addressed. I assume that as a Nederlander you can read Hochdeutsch as can I and the is marked as being in a state with this one can benefit from with appropriate translation. Lycurgus (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps WP:APR is more appropriate. I was at some pains to tone it down. Unfortunately there are times when personality issues are the thing that must be dealt with. Obviously I'm not here to do what I complain about, namely impose my personal judgements, so carry on. (adjusted your indentation). Lycurgus (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Sticks and stones, Lycurgus... I was told by a friend who is an IISH staff member that there are some plans among Chinese academic authorities to scan all of Marx's manuscripts and make them available online - IPR permitting. That wouldn't be such as bad idea, since then people could check the interpretations against the originals more easily. If, for example, Marx himself makes it very explicit that his initial discussion of "the commodity" does NOT presuppose a capitalist mode of production, and that commodity production existed long before capitalist production did (Cap. Vol. 1, p. 273-274 in the Penguin edition), then if some wikipedian "authority" argues that this is just an "interpretation" of Marx's text, he or she is plainly mistaken. It is not an interpretation, but what Marx literally says himself, and one can quote chapter and verse to prove that. If one quotes Marx himself in this sense, this does not portend or intend arrogance of pretentiousness - it merely verifies a fact. It does not really advance the discussion about the article a great deal, if the wikipedian then keeps arguing that pointing out such a plain error of fact is itself an interpretation. As for myself, I do not have the pretensions that Lycurgus accuses me of. Since however I have studied these issues across 30 years or more, as scholar, activist and researcher, discussed them with world authorities on these topics, and worked through the relevant scientific literature, I don't regard my understanding as "superficial posturing". Instead I distinguish appropriately between what Marx says about his own views, and what Marxists or others say about them. I have not worked on the "Marxian economics" article much at all, and it is not really my aim to do so anyway, given the level of controversy about it; I have concentrated mainly on some basic concepts of Marxian economic theory, that is all. Many people were glad that I had provided these reference articles. The best evidence that I have, that I am not doing too badly, is that most of the articles are still pretty much as I wrote them, years later, after tens or hundreds of thousands of views. I don't deny the right of anyone to re-edit the articles I wrote, my concern is only with whether the quality of the articles is thereby improved, or whether it makes the articles unreliable, inaccurate or nonsensical. The corresponding German articles are certainly useful, but just because something about Marx is written in the German wikipedia, is of itself no guarantee of accuracy or validity. German wiki's (or for that matter German Marxist articles) are just as much susceptible to error as their English counterparts. If I note that "in China, "Marxist political economy" may be the norm, but in the West, "Marxian economics" is a quite acceptable label for a branch of heterodox economics", I don't think I am saying anything particularly controversial. User:Jurriaan 16 June 2011 10:25 (UTC)

Rubentomas (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Hello User:Bobrayner Added clarification on difference between value and price (even if for you is obvious). Not the same in Marxian economics.

Educational assignment at Symbiosis School of Economics supported by Wikipedia ambassadors[edit]

Basic.atari (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

part of a series?[edit]

where are the other articles in the series on marxian economics? did the editor mean series on marxism? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015[edit]

Add Mount Holyoke College to the list of universities who provide courses on Marxian Theory (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)