Talk:Marxism

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


== How come there is no section on Dialectical Materialism, the philosophical basis of Marxism !?

Hilarious date allergy[edit]

The first paragraph of the lead ends with the following sentence:

It originates from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Fasten your seat-belts, that's about it for pertinent dates until midway through this long article.

No dates in remainder of lead or sidebar. The very long section "Concepts" contains a date in the leading epigram (quote from Marx dated 1858) and a date in a sidebar (Lenin 1913). No dates in text.

Small section "Relation with industrial revolution" contains no dates in text. Sidebar quotes Castro, 2009.

Small section "Revolution, socialism, and communism" contains two dates, all related to the Russian revolution, none particular to Marxism.

Finally, in a medium section on "Classical Marxism" we reach this fabulous sentence:

As such, Classical Marxism distinguishes between "Marxism" as broadly perceived, and "what Marx believed;" thus, in 1883, Marx wrote to the French labour leader Jules Guesde and to Paul Lafargue (Marx's son-in-law) – both of whom claimed to represent Marxist principles – accusing them of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and of denying the value of reformist struggle; from Marx's letter derives the paraphrase: "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."

Wow! A folded semicolon (most usage guides are against this), followed by an abstract elaboration (complete with parenthetical) — plus an appositive phrase — the elaboration now descending into Orwellian, ideological code language, but let's not stop at "reformist struggle"; let's instead have another semicolon to permit some Talmudic Yoda to enter the conversion ("paraphrase derived from Marx's letter is"): if all that is below a Fog index of 1000, I'll eat my hat. But at least we can take home '1883'.

This puts me in mind of David Byrne's book How Music Works.

From How does the art of spaces influence musical composition?:

As he points out, certain types of music seem to work better for specific places. Rap and hip-hop have their best moments in car sound systems; punk was at its best in asymmetrical and small places like the CBGB, and arias inside gothic cathedrals —places where a jazz concert, for instance, with its intricate melodies and sharp pitch changes, would not sound to its full potential. Today we can listen to each layer of sound through our iPod's headphones, and Byrne deduces that this influences the type of music we make.

Is it not possible to explain Marxism without introducing so many subtly balanced plates and so few actual dates? — MaxEnt 19:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Method or worldview?[edit]

Is Marxism a method or a worldview qua a perspective? It can't be both simulatenously (in the exact same term and article) It seems to me that the article is incoherent in this aspect. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Search image[edit]

When this article appears in Bing search it's a pornographic image of a penis and vagina. Not really sure where it's coming from or how to fix that.174.125.71.105 (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)