Talk:Marxism/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

"such a development has yet to occur in any historical self-claimed Socialist state." Paris Commune.

Also Marxism is emphatically not a 'liberal theory' except in the incraedibly crude terminology udner which loiberal means 'left', which is accepted nowhere other than certain parts of the USA? How can this statement be sustained? Please allow me to delete this nonsensical adjective. Marxism is opposed to liberalism.

--I've deleted some non NPOV comments on Marx's 'base-superstructure' position, because its tendentious and basically polemical, and also I've cut the frankly irrelevant 'the liberal challenge' stuff which has nothing to do with the subject and is just an attempt by pro-neoliberal economists to try to turn every article into one about themsleves rather than the defined topic. Imagine if every article had a section entitled 'the Marxist challenge' setting out the Marxist critique of liberalism, nationalism, Islam, sci-fi, sport, military theory etc etc. For goodness sake! Why should the Mises-Hayek people do the same?

I can't help noting that many of the comments below are non NPOV and just expression so fa lack of sympathy woith Marx. The aim of this article, surely, is not to express opinion but to explain dispassionately what Marx thought and what the principal doctrines of Marxism subsequently maintained. [Vladimir]

I'm fixing a very POV bias

And I quote: "Some libertarian members of the laissez-faire and individualist schools of thought believe the actions and principles of modern capitalist states or big governments can be understood as "Marxist"."

Can we get a source on this? This sentence is almost written to be demeaning towards libertarians. Why is that? I'm removing this and suggest that if someone is going to revert they please cite a source. This sentence mocks libertarians as simpletons who cannot draw simple distinctions.

On a second glance, I'm noticing this entire article is written in such a way to sound condescending to the reader and is far too long. Much of what can be said with far fewer words and far less detail. I wouldn't be surprised if there is duplication across multiple pages.

Old talk

This article on Marxism is pathetic. Marxist regimes were the most murderous in the history of mankind. 100 million murdered under Stalin and Mao alone.

The Wikipedia entry for Marxism, while not fantastic, is in some ways surprisingly good. (The dialectical materialism entry needs some help.) I notice that this discussion page is getting full--a symptom maybe of the continuing relevance of the Marxist critique. I also notice that a few discussants here convey a lot of knowledge about neoclassical economics postions or liberal or conservative political ideology, rather than extensive knowledge of Marxism, the subject. It might open up space if such folks would redirect their input their areas of strength.

You say Marxist regimes but you mean communist regimes or at the very least socialist regimes. It can be argued and has been in many many books (if you really care, let me know and I will go find all the references) that communist and socialist regimes while basing their ideas on Marxism and claiming to be following Marx's orders, actually have very very little to do with what Marx himself actually wrote. JenLouise 04:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with the critique bellow, this article is to say the least sub par, misinformed, and, ironically enough, a prime example of one of marx's axioms, capitalist ideolology at work.

The remainder of the original article is kept below. It is nowhere close to being from a neutral point of view, especially with the irrelevant comments on capitalism and socialism in general, and should probably be rewritten entirely.

Marxism has a number of inherent contradictions, which unfortunately, are more immediate than the contradictions in Capitalism.

In Marxism, the income from workers' work is pooled, and redistributed. The effect of this is to assure that one gets paid without regard to how well, or hard one works. For many people, this is an invitation to work poorly, or not at all. One effect of this is to lower production. Another is to produce a feeling of apathy- even of one works hard, there is still no visible effect on one's life.

A more general form of the same (pricing) problem is that prices are set by a central pricing authority. Therefore, they reflect a theoretical calculation, rather than actual scarcities. The effect is to cause tremendous waste, as people use scarce (less-efficient), but lower-priced items in place of common (more-efficient,) higher-priced items.

In Marxism, investment decisions are centralized, and this may be the greatest source of waste, because it causes the economy to grow at a lower rate. The central managers are unaware of most of the advantageous investment opportunities. There is no way to get the information to them, because any such communication channel is quickly clogged with foolish, inaccurate requests for investment. In most capitalist countries, people simply invest, and if they invest inaccurately, they lose their investment. Folly is self-limiting, and success is self-reinforcing.

Marxism is also a form of Socialism, and Socialism has several more general problems. See Socialism.

Where did you get the idea that workers' incomes are pooled in a Marxist economy?

One could certainly get that idea from his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

The whole direction of Marx's thought was towards an economy that wasn't really based on the movement of capital betweeen people, but rather based on some mixture of voluntary cooperation and central planning (exactly what mixture is of course a matter for debate). The profit incentive is supposed to be uneccessary when the "dignity of labour" is restored, i.e. when workers are free enough to work hard out of pride. This is no doubt somewhat utopian, but so is the vision of the ideal capitalist society. The question is which utopia we should be (hopelessly) aiming for. Cadr 18:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly there are inefficiences in a Marxist economic system. But so there are in a capitalist system - look at the average American's garbage can.

Exile

I'm not sure that capitalism is a quest for utopia as much as an evolving tool for allocating resources. Marxism and socialism explicitly state that these are ideal states of being, end points. Another central condition of socialism is that it allows one group impose conditions upon all others at no cost (force) to achieve this impossible state of being.

The fact that Americans have full garbage cans rather proves the point of efficiency, at least of production. It also indicats that the full cycle of products is poorly understood as to how to extract value past initial use. That too will evolve. There are VAST inefficiencies in a Marxist system, living in the former USSR i can verify that first hand.

Rather ironically, a 'capitalist' state can evolve to a socialist one if the capitalist group captures the the political process. They are then no longer limited by market considerations and the gap between "rich" and "poor" is artificially magnified. A case in point may be how Karl Rove's K-Sreet plan is transferring the vast resouces of the US government to a small group.

Marxism makes some claims which are falsifible, and these claims have a bearing on Marxism's claim to be considerd "scientific socialism".

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Not true in US. Here the poor have also gotten richer. Marx neglected the impact of technology, for one thing.
The law of the centralization of capital. An economist would be able to say whether this holds or not, in the US.
A hard-to-express law about profit tendencies (I'll have to look it up).

Ed Poor

"Not true in US" ? of course, but as the poor US´s get richer, its the subdeveloped countries who get poorer..

(spinoza1111): in the USA, the poor get rich primarily on TV (cf. The Beverly Hillbillies). According to the CIA, since 1980, the economic standing of 80% of the American people has declined while wealth creation has increased the "average" income...not the MEDIAN income.

Marx never neglected the impact of technology. He understood that a power loom is more productive than a hand loom. But he ALSO understood how the technology becomes a demand on the capitalist to work more shifts in order to be able to amortize what is a new investment.

Those subdeveloped countries, who get poorer, get poorer not because US get richer, but because they are/were marxist states (Congo, Ethiopia, now North Korea). From the other side, some subdeveloped countries have skyrocketed: the ones who ran free market economy with no trace of marxism. South Korea is an example.

Grzes 10:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congo is an interesting example. It's not really clear that Congo ever had a Marxist/Communist government, except in US propaganda. Lumumba (elected president) mostly took an anti-imperialist/racist stance, which was certainly somewhat left-wing by the standards of the 60s, but was hardly in itself Marxist. US/Belgian/UN support for the seccesion of Katanga (the area containing most of the Congo's mineral wealth) to a pro-Western leader essentially forced Lumumba to get military aid from the Soviets in order to put down the uprising (the UN and the US having refused his requests for assistence). A coup was then engineered to overthrow Lumumba and he was assasinated shortly afterwards; CIA involvement in both events was significant.

Subsequent events followed the usual pattern of American/CIA interests using increasingly violent means to surpress any kind of popular government in the region. Could it perhaps be the chaos and turmoil caused by US intervention that is partly to blame for the state of the country? Cadr 13:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read "In the Footsteps of Mr Kurtz". They themselves created a series of pervasive Kleptocracys so inept that it defies description. While US policy may at times be inept, world kaos (yes, i know) is not desirable or beneficial to us in any way. If anything, the US values stable markets for its products and reliable suppliers for its needs. Non of this is possible in an environment of turmoil. If you need a conspiracy theory or religion to explain all the evil stuff in the world, ok, but the most likely explanation is the simplest, and that is the venality and stupidity of the indigenous 'government'is responsible for the poverty and turmoil. A Kleptocracy is a form of socialism, but I wouldn't call it marxist, though I might call marxist state a kleptocracy.

The standard response to the first is that, since the economy has definitely become increasingly international, one would have to look at the international rich and poor to make a fair evaluation of the claim.

No, Marx was talking about "capitalist society", i.e., a nation with a free market system which allows private ownership of the means of production. Each Western democracy (except maybe Sweden) is an instance of such a society. In each of them, poverty (expessed in terms of absolute standard of living) has been dropping rapidly, much of which is due to advances in technology -- a factor Marx dismissed or overlooked. He was focussed on "capitalist guilt" and dead set on justifying violent revolution to overthrow capitalism. But where do most of the world's economic refugees want to come? The U.S., which is the most "capitalist" of all countries in the world. -- Ed Poor

No. Marx described capitalism as a system that was not necessarily defined by national boundaries. Indeed, one of the key differences between Marx's thought and that of some previous economists, who did what they called "political-economy," is that political economists were interested in the economies of polities (i.e. within a state) whereas Marx was interested in relations among classes. Moreover, Marx understood classes to be international -- his slogan, "Workers of the world, unite!" signals his understanding that capitalism is international and any struggle against it must be international. Marx wrote several essays about the international character of capitalism, and how one function of states was, ironically, to extend capitalism internationally -- this is clear in the first part of the Manifesto, and in his essays on the British in India and Ireland.

Ed, you are more than welcome to disagree with Marx and to claim that "capitalist society" is a national phenomena. But that is not at all what Marx claimed or argued. In an article on marx or Marxism, for NPOV purposes it is fair to mention that not all economists use the notion of "mode of production" or see modes of production as analytically and practically distinct from national boundaries. Which view is right or wrong, however, is I think a topic more appropriate for a general article on "capitalism" or "economics." -- SR

So what's the difference between Marxism and communism? --Robert Merkel

Communism is a belief that private property (especially the means of production) should be owned collectively. People believed this long before Marx lived, and even today some believe this who are not Marxists. There are and have been disagreements over how to achieve such a society, and what specific form with will take. "Marxism" refers to Marx's analysis of capitalism, and to his resulting conclusions about why communism is better, how it will be achieved, and what form it should take.

Followers (or people who claim to be followers) of Marx -- especially since Lenin -- have formed "Communist Parties" and consequently many people identify "Marxism" with "Communism." But there are many Marxists who do not belong to the COmmunist party, just as there are some communists (probably few) who are not Marxists (and who may not even call themselves communists because they do not want to be misunderstood).

Some people may not know that they are Marxists. Feminism is directly derived from Marxism and Moaism, but many of those who identify themselves as Feminist are not aware of it. In this case, Feminism promotes Marxism in stealth mode.

her is a not very good analogy that still illustrates how words can be used narrowly or broadly: in the United States there is a "Democratic" Party. But not all Americans believe that the platform of this party represents the best form of "democracy," and many people who believe in "democracy" are not members of the party. So is a "democrat" a member of the party or someone committed to "democracy?" Similarly, "communism" refers to a philosophy or ideology, and to a specific set of parties. -- SR

Maybe an abbreviated version of this answer should be added to the article. --Robert Merkel

My take on this, is that Marxism should be the philosophy of Marx. If his philosophy evolved over the course of his life, then the article should show the changes. Related to Marxism, though probably requiring another article, would be any derivative system. Some anti-communists have used the term Marxism-Leninism to describe one derivative.

The relation to communism is that the Soviet Union and (to a great extent) China have adopted Marxist ideas and used them as governing principles. However, one problem with the term communism is that it has several differenc meanings. Since I am (politically) a conservative, the most important meaning for me of "communism" is the philosophy and practice of the ruling parties of the various "communist" countries: Soviet Union (until 1990), China, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, Hungary, and so on. There are other usages of the term, often it is synonymous with socialism or communitarianism. These distinctions should be made clear somewhere -- perhaps in the communism article. --Ed Poor

Marxist abyss

"No other idea so enchanted the 20th century as Marxism. To this day, one often comes across assertions that Marxism retains value as an 'analytic tool' — the use of which does not necessarily make one a Marxist. The first person to make this distinction was, of course, Karl Marx himself, who famously forswore 'Marxism,' an appellation coined by his detractors. Marx's collaborator, Friedrich Engels, however, embraced the term, building a powerful cult around it, in which he was the high priest and Marx the oracle."

"[Engels] and Marx, a pair of 20-something children of privilege, believed they had discovered a pattern to history that would produce socialism regardless of human will or ingenuity. In short, they substituted prophecy for experimentation and thereby claimed to have elevated socialism from the plane of utopia to that of science."

"But after a century of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, surely we have learned that far from constituting a leap 'from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom,' as Marx put it, revolution has more often been a leap into a bottomless abyss of human suffering."

—Joshua Muravchik, writing on "Marxism," in the November/December issue of Foreign Policy [1]

Modern conflict theory does not rely on just economic and brute force explanations. Particularly since the Chicago School's emphasis on interpersonal communication in the 1930s, conflict theory has become more and more aware of non-force, non-economic strategies used to further advantage. Actually, my "old school" correction is an over-simplification. The key concept in understanding most conflict theory explanations is idealogy - and this was something that Marx himself wrote on at great length in the mid-18th Century. Tannin

Jus' goes to show - if you're not offending somebody, you're not in politics. Marxism as a method is not vulnerable to empirical disproofs (in fact, this is the main claim of one of the most serious objections to it - see Karl Popper and Falsifiability). While I'm here, has anyone noticed that the Duke University link is a dud? I've found a Google cache for that page, but the nested address confuses the hell out of the wiki linking protocols ( [2]). Any suggestions? Adhib

On second thoughts, I've now read the article. It appears to be ill-informed and confused, and the cache misses-out on the one potentially interesting element - the equations. Perhaps best to drop the whole thing? --Adhib

The article mentions several times that various revolutionary movements (e.g. the Russian Revolution) were inspired by Marxism. This is of course broadly true, but it might be good to contrast Marxism with Marxism-Leninism, which is a more accurate description of the ideology of a lot of Communist states. For example the idea that the working classes could not bring about a revolution by themselves, but had to be directed by an intellectual elite is clearly a possible explanation for the authoritarian and generally repulsive nature of many Communist states, and it is not one of the docterines of Marx's Marxism. In addition, Marx believed (I think) that a successful revolution required as a prerequisite an advanced industrial society, which Russia had not yet become at the time of the revolution; Lenin believed that it was not necessary to wait for advanced industrialization. Hence there are important differences between pure Marxism and the ideologies of many Communist states. I don't want to wade in and start editing, because I expect there'll be a lot of different opinions on this... —Cadr

No comments on this? Cadr

What you right seems very reasonable. Slrubenstein

Not only very reasonable but very accurate! Marx did in fact say that communism would come about by the majority of the (working-class) people being invovled in a revolution, and although some of his writings on socialism (yes this is very different to communism in Marx's writing) do talk about a smaller group of people making the change on behalf of and representative of the mass population, the way that most socialist/communist revolutions occurred had no direct link to Marx's work. Furthermore Marx definitely beleived that 'successful revolution required as a prerequisite an advanced industrial society' because he mentions it quite a number of times throughout his work. So yes - very good point! JenLouise 04:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Marx says "I am not a marxist" quote

Someone keeps adding a claim that Marx was not a MArxist. This quote comes from a letter to Marx's son-in-law, written under very specific circumstances. It is wrong to take the quote out of context, and misleading and disingenuous to put it in a new context. Slrubenstein

What do you mean? What is mislead? How is it disingenous? He thought totalitarian use of his work was bad and said he was'nt a maxist. You are trying to hide the most salient fact about Marxism --that he was'nt a "marxist" !! Quickwik 20:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry -- did you cite the source of this remark? (yes you deleted it) Do you know to whom Marx was speaking, and in what context? (yes you mentioned it above) Are you saying that what Marx meant by this is that he was against "totalitarianism" (a concept not used at the time)? (Yes it was later named but he lived in the middle of it) Please do not accuse me of "shittalk" when you do not know any facts. (I'm only saying "Some of the facts" are now missing in the article..) Slrubenstein

But what is misleading?? You never answered? "How is it disingenous?"

To ignore such a salient personal note as marx's rebuttal of marxism really makes for a stale treatment of what is still a subject full of contradiction and interest.Quickwik

To so blatently misrepresent what Marx said, anachronistically assuming that what he was referring to as "marxism" is what you or anyone else today refers to as "marxism," is ignorant and deceptive. How can you possibly misconstrue Marx's letter as a rebuttal of Marxism, as currently understood? Don't just quote one sentencc. If you insist on putting the sentence in the article, at least put in the whole paragraph from the letter and provide some context (who he wrote the letter to and why) Slrubenstein

I agree with SLrubenstein. Marx was talking about a particular group/sect, claiming that if these people were Marxists, then he "was no Marxist". mattkidd12

Something that is very much missing here is that the article focuses on the Communist branch of Marxism, while missing some of the other branches, particularly the social democratic one.

Roadrunner 08:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes - the German Social Democratic Party was officially Marxist until the 1960s, I believe - anyone have anything more on this?

Exile

Sure. Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is part of the evil, evil conspiracy run by those evil, evil rich people who are the source of all evil in the world (and, what, also eat babies?). And as for "ineffeciencies" - well, I'll take having too much in my trash can over starving to death becuase the farmers have no reason to actually grow anything (as tens of millions did under Lenin and Stalin and Mao - don't deny it). And, since I'm getting all this off my chest - we have plenty of talk about the hatred of the "right wing" (you know, racism, nationalism, that stuff); why can't we recognise that hating someone becuase he has a better car or house than you ( which would be nearly everyone in my case, in case you're thinking of me as one of "them") is also... hate? And maybe after that we can realise that memebrs of minorites who hate the majorities are just as bad as the other way around - maybe that's harder.

When I tried to indicate some of this on the Marxism main page, and on the hate page, I was squelched in less than ten minutes. Ten minutes.

Can't we at least admit that all the experiments in communism up until now have failed, or is all academia going to keep burying its head in the sand, thus doing a grave injustice to the millions - including several of my own relatives, so don't you try to lie about it, you ... expeletives deleted ... - who either starved or were executed? In short: when are we going to learn that people who can't stand the idea that someone else has more than they do at all, ever, aren't the best people to have in charge of anything? And when are we going to learn not to listen to hatemongers in general (yes, including "right wing" as well as "left wing" ones), no matter how sophisticated their excuses? And, Exile, those criticisms are valid and those problems are exactly the reason that the USSR isn't around anymore, exactly the reason Cuba and North Korea have to kill anyone and everyone within their borders that speaks against them - to maintain their power. The fact that there seems to be this coordinated effort to silence all criticism of the failed Marxist system and its verious ideolgical cousins on this Wiki is really pissing me off.

Whew. OK, I'm done now. Look at that sentence structure... I must have been very angry. I hope that the Wikipedia Marxist community will at least let someone disgree with their religion on a Talk page. A Talk page, for crying out loud!

Any more specific comments on NPOV in this article? Cadr 18:09, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, here's my specific comment: Communism in Russia alone is repsonsible for the deaths (again, mostly by starvation) of about twice as many people as died in WWII and in those famous concentration camps put together and this is not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia. I find this to be the moral equivalent of holocaust denial.

First, you yourself use the word "communism" here rather than "marxism." Many other people distinguish between communism and marxism. This article is not about a particular political party, or a political system that was put into practice in Russia, China, or other countries. "Marxism" refers to a critique of capitalism and an approach to history and society that can be used to analyze other systems. Many scholars have found this approach useful without approving of (or even, while actively condeming) the CP or the USSR. It is best to keep articles on these topics separate. Second, there has and continues to be much debate as to what best explains the failures of the USSR and various atrocities. Some people see the ideology of communism as being the fundamental cause. Others see a more specific "Leninist" ideology as the cause. Others see other causes that have to do with more specific phenomena both within the 20th century and within the USSR. An account of this debate belongs in the article on the Soviet Union. Finally, this talk page is meant to be a place to discuss how to improve the article. If you have specific criticisms of specific passages of the article, or specific proposals for specific changes, by all means let's discuss them. If you want to express some angry personal rant, find the appropriate listserve or chat room -- this just isn't the place. Slrubenstein

Fine. Here's my specific proposal. Link to the history of the USSR, to the history of Maoist China, to the history of the Khmer Rouge. Within the USSR article, include maybe a little bit more on the famines. And at least admit, once, in some slight way, that someone, somehwere, might have actually killed in the name of Marx here in this article. Include the stuff Exile took out, maybe in some toned-down form not referring to socialism if you like; they are valid criticisms. Maybe you can call it "practical problems." Finally, treat the comment at the top of this page dismissing any criticism of Marx as "capitalist ideology" with as much personal denegration, sarcasm, and hate as you've treated me.

I've added the links. I didn't even link specifically to the suspiciously meager descriptions of the atrocities, just to the history pages themselves. Is that acceptable? Also, here I'll give you a "toned-down" version of the criticisms Exile squelched in a few minutes.

Here it is:

A few of the practical challenges brought against the various attempt to implement Marx' ideas:

In the systems attempting to approximate Marxism, the income from workers' work was pooled, and redistributed: the famous "from each according to ability, to each according to need." The effect of this was to assure that one gets paid without regard to how well, or hard one worked. For many people, this was an invitation to work poorly, or not at all. Naturally this lowered production. Another effect was to produce a feeling of apathy- even of one works hard, there is still no visible effect on one's life. There is also the possibility that neither the individual nor anyone else may be able to correctly discern anyone's ability under this circumstance. Marx claimed that eventually people would learn to work just for the sake of work and would know what to produce simply by asking around; like so many of Marx' ideas, this has never been achieved.

A worse permutation of this is that in many systems, the various governments began to force people to work under threat of violence. While this did increase production above the zero that would (and often did) result from the above, the use of violence seemed contradictory to the spirit of Marxism. Many governments felt forced to do so to avert widespread famine.

Under the historical attempts at central planning, prices were set by a central pricing authority. They reflected a theoretical calculation of what something should be 'worth', rather than actual scarcities. If this calculation is very wrong, the effect is to cause tremendous waste, as people use scarce (less-efficient), but lower-priced items in place of common (more-efficient) higher-priced items. According to Marxists, this problem could be done away with by eliminating the money (or "transfer of capital") system, but this has never been acheived.

Another problem with attempts to implement these ideas is that investment decisions were centralized. This might have been the greatest source of waste. The central managers were unaware of most of the advantageous investment opportunities and were often unable to keep track of all options. There was no way to get the information to them, because any such communication channel could quickly be clogged with disingenuous requests for investment. In most capitalist countries, people simply invest, and if they invest inaccurately, they lose their investment. This tends to 'train' them to be more accurate in their decisions. A manager in these systems had no more reason to invest wisely than a worker under the same system.

Finally, the concentration of economic power in the hands of a central bureaucracy in many of these historical attempts often led to a great deal of corruption; that is, deliberate mismanagement meant to enrich members of the Party which goes unchecked because the Party also controlled all channels of information.

No one would claim that this was what the supports of Marxism would have wanted, but the huge, all-powerful states that always seemed to result from Marxist revolutions consistently lent themselves to these abuses. Some people see the ideology of communism as being the fundamental cause of these problems. Others see a more specific "Leninist" ideology as the cause. Others see other causes that have to do with more specific phenomena both within the 20th century and within the USSR, and claim that none of these systems was "really" striving toward a Marxist system.

A more fundamental (and controversial) criticism of Marx' ideas is that they seem, almost uncannily, to ascribe all the various ills of the human condition to some sort of ruling class. Some have claimed, then, that Marxism is merely a 'hatred of the rich,' which Marxists deny.

So is that "neutral" enough for you or is it still not Marxist enough? If you somehow decide to include it, I'd sugest putting it under the "liberal challenge" section; then you could call that section simply "challenges" or "challenges and criticism of results."

Well, this is much clearer and constructive, thank you. As for the specifics: I think the links you added are fine. Otherwise, you seem to be raising three issues: first, that Marxism advocates collectivism; second, that it advocates central planning; three, that it reduces history to class conflict. I believe that the first point you make belongs in the communism article, and not here. As that article points out, collectivism (from each ...) is an ideal or value advocated by many people long before Marx, and should not be identified primarily with Marx. It is more accurate to see Marx as one example or kind of communist, or as a philosopher attempting to develop a larger framework to support communist ideas circulating before he was born. Criticisms of communism ought to be in the article, but they ought to be specific. I think your second point also belongs in other articles. I don't think Marx himself advocated centralization. This issue is better treated in several other articles: specific articles on the USSR, an article on Leninism, for example. But did you know that centralized states pre-date Marxism too? It is true that the USSR had a more elaborate "machinary" for centralization, than the Inca or Chinese (I mean, under Confucianism), for example, but this is because all sorts of technologies are more developed in the 20th century (thus, US democracy could be much bigger than Athenian democracy). In any event, there is a whole category of states with central planning, called "Tributary States" or "Empires" that can be faulted for the same problems you see in the Soviet Union. Finally, this point can also be discussed in the article on Corporatism -- arguably, Stalinism is one example of corporatism, as was FDR's New Deal which also increased central control over the government. Corporatism was a response to the Great Depression found in many different countries, supported by a variety of ideologies and taking different forms. Your third point, that Marx reduced history to class conflict, is accurate -- but I think it is already represented in this article. There have been scholarly and theoretical as well as political critiques which should be at least linked to this article -- some feminists for example see patriarchy as more fundamental and insidious that class inequality; Eduard Bernstein criticized Marx's revolutionary program. But who has claimed that Marx "hates the rich?" The communist manifesto expresses a good deal of admiration for the bourgeois class. Slrubenstein

[End of Slrubenstein's comment; start of Cadr's comment]. So you mainly just wanted to add in some extra links to the article? No need to get so agitated about that, I don't think anyone would complain. As you yourself say, most of the criticisms you want to add are criticisms of specific governments which claimed to be Marxist. We have to be very careful in adding these criticisms to the article on Marxism, because to assume that those governments actually were Marxist is POV. I think most of those criticisms are in the article anyway, but I for one won't object if you expand on them, so long as it's made clear that to say "such-and-such a government was Marxist in nature" is a POV which must be attributed.

A few specific comments.

"From each according to his ability..." does not refer to the redistribution of private wealth (although I don't doubt the assertion that such redistribution has taken place under particular governments). Marxist (re)distribution of wealth is effected by public owenership of virtually all wealth by means of public ownership of the means of production — there is simply no private wealth, in the form of wages or otherwise, to redistribute. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth, not its redistribution, which presumes some sort of vaguely capitalist society. Criticism of the pooling of wages is therefore not trivially converted into criticism of Marxist theory, since wage labour is one of the features of a capitalist economy which Marxism seeks to eliminate (alienation of labour, etc.)

Yes, people have been killed in Marx's name, just as they have been killed in many other people's names. I suppose such ad hominem arguments might have some sort of place in the article, but they barely merit a mention IMHO.

Most of your criticisms apply to governments which by your own admission aren't really Marxist. I understand that many people believe that Marxism inevitably leads to a tyrannical centralised governement, but we should be careful in the article to note that Marx wanted the state to wither away, and that (inevitable or not) any increase in government control of the economic life of the population is profoundly unMarxist. Cadr 19:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the interests of being "constructive" I'll try to come up with a description of the critique of Marxism that pertains diresctly to Marxism per se and communism in general without referring to the various govenments which espoused his theory, but which is better than the rather poor representation given in the article. This might take a while, as I suddenly find myself with much to do. And, yes, Cadr, you are right to assume that I think that Marxism inevitably leads to a tyrannical government, inasmuch as it is preached primarily by those who are jealous of the existence of anyone having power except themselves - but if that won't be allowed, I won't try it. I plan to have a paragraph for you over the weekend, which I hope we will all be able to agree to being added to the article.

In the meantime I will not abandon my claim that Marxists hate rich people. This is not based on what Marx himself wrote (it's clear that the two of you have read more of it than I have) but rather on my observations of Marxists out here in the real world. It seems to me a bit too coincidental that according to their phiIosophy all the ills of the world result form the actions of this "bourgeois class" , and it certainly does not help that their voices raise to a fever pitch whenever they discuss the accouterments of wealth or the names of wealthy people. It walks like hate and talks like hate, so I call it hate. I don't care whether or not the assembled will agree with me, but I understand that this won't make it into the article. So at least let me present the case of Marx' critics more clearly, hm?

I don't want to discourage the anonymous user above, but I do want to clarify one thing: this is an encyclopedia, and editors/contributors ought not put their own views in articles. Whether a contributor does or does not think that Marxism inevitably leads to tyrrany, or that Marxists do or do not hate rich people, is simply irrelevant. What does matter are views that others -- scholars, political activists, politicians -- have; views that we can research. If the anonymous contributor plans on putting work into writing a paragraph or two summing up critiques, I hope s/he does not work hard trying to articulate his or her own critique, which would be a waste of time. Instead, research what significant critiques are out there, and work at providing an account of those critiques. Be sure to explain in what way they are significant (in other words, it isn't enough to go to a local bar or cafe and ask people over a cigarette or beer what they think of Marxism; a significant critique is one that is shared by a large number of people, and is highly visible (there may be other criteria -- these are just examples) Slrubenstein

Then let me explain what the 'critics' said. Right now the discussion in the artice is so weak as to misrepresent them. It turns out I have been exposed to mush of the criticism already, as I am studying economics at University, and I have attempted to sum it up. I wasn't as breif as I would have hoped. The leading light usually cited in this field is Friedrich von Hayek and the Austrian School (and its extension, the Chicago school) as well as mainstream mondern economics; I think this article should link to all that, but my Wiki-skills are too weak to know how.

In any case, here are three paragraphs which I think represent the "highly visible" critiques of Marx and others like him which have not yet been reprented in the Wikipedia. I see already that a) this page is too long and b) that I have repeated the claim that follows at the end of the article (ie. Marxism -> totalitarianism, which is not just my idea). As for b), my explaination includes why this is supposed to happen; as for a), well, I don't know.

The first criticism offered was the incentive problem. Without individual attachment to specific items - the concept of "property" - there would be no incentive to work more efficiently or to find the best use of a property. In this view the owners of property are not "parasites" who "exploit" all others, but in fact do serve a function - finding improvements, managing operations, etc, not out of altruism but out of self-interest. They also point out that wealth is merely one part of a much larger phenomenon - that is, that those who "own capital" are merely those who successfully served their customers (usually 'workers') opposed to the more numerous failures. There is a sort of natural selection involved.

The second basic criticism of the Marxist ideal has to do with information. Markets reduce large amounts of information - the scarcity of raw materials, the difficulty of doing the labor and the scarcity of the skills involved, the difficult involved in transporting goods up and down what may be several stages of production - and reduce them to a single piece of information which represents the overall scarcity: the price. Transfers of capital are transfers of information and also transfers of desire: if I pay you to do something, I am making my desire to have that done your desire by giving you the agreed-upon amount of money. In other words, the transfer of capital in form of money allows people to align other's interests with theirs, and this extends all the way up and down the chain of production, allowing the "working class" in their numbers to exert a great deal control over the owners of the means of production through their consumption choices. Critics do not believe Marx or proponents of collectivism throughout history can sufficiently account for this, and that any attempt at Marxism will either revert back to the free market or become a totalitarian state in a desperate fight to avoid famine by somehow coordinating activities. Both of these results would have been repugnant to Marx, but his critics say they are inevitable. See F. A. von Hayek and the Austrian School of economists. Critics point to the the experience of various attempts to establish a Marxist system to support this claim: see the USSR, Poland, China, Cuba, and the Khmer Rouge for the full spectrum of results. Marxists retort that in none of those systems - indeed, never in the history of the world - was a true Marxist civilization actually achieved. This makes the practical applicability of Marxism conveniently untestable, at least for the time being.

A third more basic criticism is that Marx simply did not take into account the two-sided nature of markets when discussing his theory of labor choices. It is true that workers must compete with other workers for jobs; it is however also true that employers must compete with other employers for labor. Who gets the most profit will then depend on the prevailing conditions: the most common example cited is the rapid increase in wages in Europe after the black plague, which is said to be the result of a sudden decrease in the the supply of labor. In this view the current exportation of jobs overseas is said to be doomed to destroy itself:more and more work is sent to places like China and Mexico, labor there is made more scarce, and the inevitable result is that eventually those workers will be able to demand higher wages as a result. It is true that the economies of both China and Mexico have been rapidly growing for years now, but Marxists claim this is simply benefitting the ruling classes in those countries.

Thank you again for a more concrete and constructive posting. If these three criticisms represent important points of Hayek's thought, I think that a full consideration of them belong in an article on Hayek (not ere). I DO agree that some criticims should go here -- I think the points made in the frist two paragraphs are very reasonable and wonder if you can find a way to express them more succinctly, to put in a section of "early critiques." By the way, I think it is absolutely central that the article distinguish between critiques of Marx's theories as presented in his published work (e.g. Capital, German Ideology, Poverty of Philosophy), versus critiques of communist states (which really belong in articles on USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc).

I have more doubts about the third paragraph, because Marx was indeed very aware of the two-sided nature of the labor market. This is precisely the issue for the call for labor unions, which Marx often supported. The Black Plague situation is a very good example -- but one that occured before the development of Capitalism. Marx was well aware that under Capitalism, capitalists usually have a major advantage over workers in the labor market (have you ever seen the movie, Roger and Me?). Moreover, Marx's fundamental problem was not with the often-times one-sided nature of the labor market; he believed selling one's labor is by its very nature alienating. In short, I think it is fair to raise these issues in the article -- but not in a way that misrepresents Marx. And insofar as these points are part of a larger theory of economics provided by teh Austrians, it belongs in another article where it can be fleshed out in full (wiht, of course, a link ere). How does this sound? (PS p[lease consider signing your remarks so when know when they begin and end, and know which ones are yours)Slrubenstein

Well, I'm back! And you thought you were rid of me. When I get around to it I'll move the latest revision either to the Austrian school article of von Hayek's.

As for "Roger and Me" ... I'll believe that the moment you accept Ann Coulter or Limbaugh or some other right-wing propagandist - which is to say: never.

Dean Sayers The problem with any attempt to link MArx with the actions of a given state is that marx was, under most (or all) circumstances, dead when the state was around. Furthermore, he focused on the actions of certain states which never decalared themselves marxist as showing how communal lifestyles can work in a social structure, which shows that he was not in any way restrained to the idea of forceful, self-proclaimed marxism. There is simply no cause that one can find to claim that marxism is unreasonable that can be found in the ideas and actions of others - this has much to do with why he said he was not a marxist.

Most nations claiming to be marxist have followed a leninist system, which is not marxist at all - Lenin himself called it "state capitalism," and later attempted to heavily modify it when he realized that this aspect of his authoritarianism didn't work. On that same note, Marx himself always spoke against authoritarianism. /Dean Sayers

The Hegelian Roots

The material about the "Hegelian roots" of Marx was in need of some serious beefing up. I've done a little bit of it today. The earlier draft said only that Hegel was an idealist who studied history and Marx was a materialist who also studied history! One might as well use the same line to describe the "Platonic roots of Aristotle", and one would be as superficial as a television sitcom in either case.

I'd tried to do better, at least introducing the word "dialectic" and the notion of world-historical figures such as Napoleon as symptoms rather than causes.

I also tried to draw some NPOV connections between the Hegelian roots of Marx and some of the havoc that has been wrought in Marx's name. This is not a matter of "blaming" Marx -- or even Hegel -- for that havoc, or otherwise making a POV judgment, but it is a matter of providing some of the accurate historical materials which an encyclopedia is supposed to incorporate. Mihnea has deleted that part of my effort twice today (leaving the stuff about Napoleon untouched) so I'm going to leave it be for now.

But here, for those who may wish to comment on the matter and help me with the beefing-up of this section, is the now-deleted passage:

The adoption of Marxist slogans by certain mass murderers has been something other than an unfortunate accident -- it has likely been facilitated by certain features of Marx's original statements. Insofar as Marx was, and always remained, a Hegelian, he retained the Hegelian notion that certain historical forces are on the right side of history, and that opposition to those progressive forces is objectively and scientifically regressive. This is a point of view that can well lead to ruthlessness toward those who represent a now-disgarded thesis or antithesis, in the forward dialectical march. The losers of a political struggle don't pass into a tolerated opposition status, when they are regarded as having been consigned by history itself to a dustbin. Leon Trotsky employed the "dustbin" image, and in time was himself consigned thereto.

Would be nice if you had signed your contribution. In any case, I think your comment is correct. It might be necessary to refer to the criticism of Arendt and Popper in this regard, who consider the very essence of Marxism to be a main cause of the totalitarian nature of those governments and regimes who took their inspiration from Marx. The last paragprah of your comment pretty much sums this up, and i suspect you have read Arendt and Popper:) Dietwald 17:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Another limitation of Marxism is the fact that it treats all exchangeable goods as commodities. He even states as much in the first few pages of Das Kapital. The value of a good is the sum of the materials required, plus the labor used in thier creation. This may be the case with commodities, but it certainly is not the caser when it comes to differentiated products. In fact, the value of most of the products we buy derive thier value from differentiation. As an example, a pair of Diesel Jeans costs around five times the cost of a new pair of Levi's. The Diesel jeans may or may not use higher quality denim, or utilize more skilled workers, but would this be a rational assumption? I don't think so. People buy Diesel for the gratification they get from that particular brand.

Whoever wrote this hasn't read much of the literature about Marxian economics, which recognizes wide differences between the exchange value incorporated in products and the price of commodities on the market. And he/she is confusing subjective value and objective value, and not realizing that in the begining of Capital Marx is operating at a very high level of abstraction, as most economic theory does, which is different from the level at which the prices of specific commodities are determined. An excellent introduction to understanding this fully is the beginning of Paul Sweezy's Theory of Capitalist Development. Without understanding this point about abstraction, it's hard to understand much about Marxian economics, regardless of whether the latter is valid or invalid. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Marx may have been right about commoddities, but the point I am trying to make is that consumers buy very little in the way of commodities, and this is a huge limitation for one trying to apply marxism to a current market paradigm. Keep in mind, the higher the level of abstraction, the further away it is removed from reality. This may be true of all early economists, but most people recognize the massive weaknesses in the ideas of Smith and Ricardo. That doesn't seem to be that case with Marx, regardless of how glaring those weaknesses are.

A) What are your consumers consuming if not commodities? In a capitalist economy, that is what consumption consists of: consuming commodities (which of course include services produced by labor for the market). B) The fact that a science or intellectual discipline uses abstractions does not mean that it's "further removed from reality". We use abstractions to understand reality. For example, we use the abstraction of objects falling or moving in a vacuum, which we never see, to understand how objects fall in the non-vacua around us. In economics we use the abstraction of a pure market situation to understand certain aspects of economic transactions and behavior, even though there is rarely such a thing as a pure market situation, and so on. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Consumers generally buy differentiated products. Simply put, these are brand names that derive a substantial part of thier value from a brand name. A commodity is an undifferentiated product, normally raw materials, or crude itesm that derive little or no value from differentiation. For example, If I make a coat, (Marx loved to use coats as examples) The value of that coat will be mush less than one sewn by Gucci or Mark Jacobs. In the latter, most of the value is derived from the brand name, and even though the quality of the two jackets may be exactly the same, the value is not. My jacket is a commodity. Mark Jacob's is not. Since Marx based most of his arguments on the value of labor as utilized in the process of production, these are not valid when the sale is of something other than a commodity. in fact, mark jacobs alone is the one the one that adds value to his clothes.

Furthermore, labor is not, and can never be, considered a commodity. By it's very nature, a laborer can differentiate his/her labor, and in doing so manipulate it's value. To presume to be able to arbitrarily determine the value of labor without repsect to demand would be to limit or control what goods and services were made available for consumption, and in doing so limit the freedom of the consumer to choose how they allocate thier resources.

I don't understand this paragraph. Even capitalist economists consider labor a commodity that is bought and sold on the labor "market". Max Weber and Karl Polanyi, both anti-Marxists, consider the labor market and the commodification of labor to be the principal attribute of capitalism. What does the author of the paragraph mean by "by its very nature" and by "a laborer being able to differentiate his/her labor." I don't think that many of the food runners and supermarket employees in the city where I live have any noticeable ability to "differentiate" their labor. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Labor could be a commodity, for one specific moment in time, but the laborer will always have the capacity to learn new skills or recieve additional training. In doing so, they differentiate themselves. A true commodity has no organic ability to differentiate itself. A bean will always be a bean, and gravel will always be gravel, etc. A baen MAY be differentiated when it is purchased by Green Giant or Del monte, and attaches thier moniker to it, but it is not able to do so itself. the laborers at your local grocery store have a virtually limitless ability to differentiate thier labor. They can go to college, and differentiate themselves from those without a degree, or they could specialize in a specific field of grocery store operations, and do the same. like I said, their ability to differentiate themselves is limited only by themselves.

The fact that labor is diffentiated through skill and training is a core part of Marx's point: that labor is a commodity that is produced like any other commodity and whose value, like other commodities, is determined largely by the amount of labor that goes into producing it (training, education, etc.). The differentiation of labor and the different value attached to different aspects of the commodity called labor is treated in a number of places in Marx's Capital (see, for example, vol. 1 chapter 14). To go to college and get a degree COST MONEY. A labor cannot "differentiate" him/herself if he can't afford it, as most people in our society can't or don't, and even if he/she does, this will produce a difference in their value only if they can SELL their labor on the labor market, i.e. if they function as a commodity. And if their jobs are outsourced to other countries, as they may be because capitalists KNOW that labor as a commodity and therefore rationally try to buy it where it is cheaper, their self-differentiation will have no impact on their value or income, as many people in American society are experiencing. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy,

It sounds to me like you are making general assumptions based either on personal experience or preconcieved notions, first and foremost that most (or many, as you put it) are somehow disadvantaged economically. I disagree, but that really has no relevance at all with respect to Marxian economics. We are able to diffrerentiate ourselves in a variety of ways. For example, my being able to differentiate myself allowed me to receive a full ride scholarship. I cost of tuition was $0. Another option would have been to take loans, or save money, or any of a million other ways one might use to pay for an education, but like I said, that's niether here nor there. maybe a better example would be an artist or musican that is able to demand large paychecks through differentiation, even without the benefit of a college degree.

too much Marx and not enough marxism on this page

It is clear from the Karl Marx page, that he was not a marxist, so why is the marxism page so much about him. Shouldn't those parts about him be moved to a section on the Karl Marx page and the page be more about those who claim to operate in his name?

In the section on Austrian economics, appears to be really weak on the response of Marxist authors, surely they had something more substantive than name calling in response (a "bourgeois reaction").

The differences between the communist and socialist wings is glossed over, surely they each had arguments why their position was the true marxist position and the other was not.

There is no mention of the cultural revolution, the stalinist purges, the Pol Pot regime and the criticism or defense of these on marxist principles, and whether they call marxism into question, either as an ideal or as practical matter.--Silverback 07:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not get your point. I do not see how the Marx page makes it "clear" that Marx was not a Marxist (though of course I grant that Marx was not Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Martin Luther King). "Marxism" refers to a set of beliefs, theories, and analytical methods developed by Marx. Perhaps some people use the term to refer to a set of political programs, or even to specific countries. But I know that many academics use the term to refer specifically to non-political activities, to refer instead to a set of scholarly questions and procedures (the political program, by contrast, is variously refered to as communism or Bolshevism or Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism, to keep it distinct from "Marx.") Slrubenstein

Marx was already distancing himself from some of the marxists of his time, claiming at least once in a particular context "...I am not a marxist" and since later marxists gained power, they had to produce the recipes for the cook-shop, that he refrained from doing. Editors on the Karl Marx page have made it clear that he cannot be held responsible for what was done in his name later. Since Marx moved away from doing philosophy later in his career a lot of later marxism was perhaps owes more to marx's strongly hegelian influenced early career and end up incorporating hegelianism that Marx had abandoned. There is plenty of room for marx's philosophy to be reported on the Marx page. Marxism should be where the marxist strains and their mutual and external criticisms are represented. Presumably some have extrapolated too far in their recipes violating what others view as core marxist values. Presumably others have compromised core values too much in reaching an accomodation with capitalism or practical reality. Presumably there is more to historical and modern marxist criticism than merely labeling opponents "bourgeoisie". What were the marxists apologias for the purges, wars and cultural revolutions and what were the other marxists criticisms of these. Has marxism blended with humanism or remained more pure. Is Marx merely a historical source, or does he still inspire and purify current movements, etc.--Silverback 00:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you are saying there is more material on Marxism, from after Marx died, that should be included in this article -- I of course agree. But I think your comment still distorts aspects of Marx's career. You are quoting his letter to his son-in-law out of context, and misinterpreting it. Also, Marx's whole position as a philosopher was to be an activist -- which means that it is very hard or even misleading to describe one time in Marx's life as more philosophical, and other times as less philosophical. It is true that as a youth he was more taken by Hegel. But he was also an activist and revolutionary in the 1840s. I don't know what it means to say he "moved away" from philosophy later in his life. He spent the 50's in the library of the British Museum reading and reflecting on the the world, and writing Capital. It seems to me that he believed that historical and economic research where legitimate philosophical activities (a view he may have gotten in part from Hegel). Slrubenstein

It means, he thought he was doing history and economics and not philosophy, he stated that the real world is to philosophy "what sexual love is to onanism". Neil McInness characterises Marxism this way, "...after the empirical social sciences had taken from Marx's work all that was useful to them (and it was a great deal), there remained much dross--disproven prophecy, hasty generalization, and plain error. Instead of being discarded, as the errors and absurdities of Newton and Pasteur were in the physical and biological sciences, this nonempirical material was kept alive by a social movement committed to preserving intact the whole of Marx's legacy...Everywhere, Marx's principle philosophical consequence has been to stimulate the study of Hegel. Otherwise, it has had singularly little effect on philosophy, even on pragmatism, with which it has evident affinities." Instead of being article which fails to explain marxism and merely repeats it (try proving or testing the statements in the extensive quote currently in the article), this article should be about how "marxists" used Marx's legacy and what the historical results were. Marxists focused on the rhetoric and invective, to divide, pidgeon hole and dehumanize their enemies. Is there now a philosophy of "marxism"? Is it the same pablum that is used to control and exploit the masses in the third world, or do the elite marxists have a more sophisticated apologia with which they try to survive peer review in academia?--Silverback 06:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that "this article should be about how "marxists" used Marx's legacy" but it must be done in an NPOV and balanced way. "Pablum" is not NPOV -- I know there are many who see Marxist rhetoric as pablum and this is a POV that should be represented in the article, but it must be represented as a POV. Moreover, McInnes's view is also just one POV. It is true that Marx is not a major topic of study in philosophy departments but that does not mean that the later Marx was not interested in philosophy -- it means that his approach to philosophy is marginal in contemporary philosophy departments. But we have to see this in context: philosophy is not just what is taught in philosophy departments (to think so would be to ignore academic politics and also the way culture affects social institutions like universities). You may think Marxists control and exploit people in the third world, but most people would say that this is not true about Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Sweezy, Anderson, Thompson, Worsley, Wolf, etc. (these are among the major 20th century Marxists that this article should touch on, according to your criterion of not limiting the article to Marx) In what way do you think these people are exploiting the third world? Slrubenstein

I doubt the leading marxist thinkers are the ones exploiting the third world, instead the political leadership and the lower quality 3rd world universities where memorization and politicization rather than critical thinking are emphasized are the sources of the unthinking marxist mantras. It serves the power elite, to have the west blamed for their troubles to distract from their own government's failings. Apologies for the use of "pablum", perhaps I should have used a more technical term, such as marx's "opiate". Marx's influence on philosophy departments is not marginal for lack of fairness, since many departments have at least token marxist representation, and the other humanities departments often have many, but just for the lack of enduring, defensible contributions. A simplistic proletariat/bourgeoisie dichotomy based on a unidirectional claim of exploitation does not have much explanatory value and is not repaired much by a "petty bourgeoisie" patch. A historical determinism and story of "progress" that constantly gets siderailed by brutal "great men" like Stalin with only excuses and no consistant apologia for this failing, does not make an impression on intellectually honest critical thought.--Silverback 09:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Claims of the importance of ""Critical thinking"" is the mantra which is memorized in 1st world. As almost any graduate of a 1st world university will attest, much of this mantra goes little beyond being, well, a mantra. I think your characterization of 3rd world universities would be met by many exceptions to your rule, if you bothered to take a look. So many exceptions, that, in fact, the rule may be a bad one. Also, Stalin was part of progress, historical progress in the Marxist sense. Whatever people may not like about Stalin or what they have been taught in schools or books about Stalinism, the Marxist analysis would dictate that Stalin was a symptom, not a cause. Furthermore, I believe the most common Marxist analysis of the USSR today was that it was, in fact, capitalist.-Capone 09:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Critical thinking is also the mantra of philosophy, it may be almost as rare in the west as in the third would. Stalin may be a symptom that historical determinism is the thesis and the temptation and hubris of power in the antithesis, and the synthesis is Stalin. Calling him a capitalist is not critical thinking, it is obsfuscation, and it would not surprise me that such is the marxist analysis.--Silverback 11:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who calls Stalin a "capitalist?" Slrubenstein

You mean besides capone? Apparently "the most common Marxist analysis of the USSR today". I am sure he can document it.--Silverback 02:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a venue for original research it does not matter that Capone calls Stalin a capitalist. The major "Marxist" critics of Stalin and Stalinism, Trotsky and Schachtman, did not call Stalin a "capitalist." In any event, I think it is clear that some of what Stalin did, and how he did it, is intelligible in terms of Marxist thought (see Deutscher), while many Marxists criticized and opposed Stalin and Stalinism. The point is to get away from juvenile and simple minded syllogisms like, Stalin was a marxist, Stalin was a murderer, therefore Marxism is murder. The goal is to reach a more nuanced understanding of how ideas, individuals, and institutions interact over time. Slrubenstein

Okay, let me do this point by point. Obfuscation? Original reserach? I can document this. #You will have to allow me some time, like a few days to a week, to find the proper quotes and names. ## It is not a matter of original research to state matters of fact. I did not say that Stalin was a capitalist. This is not my research. I said that it is a majority view among Marxists is that the USSR was capitalist. If anyone wants to add that this makes Stalin a de-facto capitalist, that is their choice, it certainly is one possible deduction that can be made from the fact that it is a majority opinion among marxists today that the ussr was capitalist. ## The closest approximation I can make is to look at those currently existing Marxist trends and look at their raw membership numbers, in terms of party registration, and then ascribe the official party line on the ussr as being the views of those individuals in the party. Can you think of a better methodology? ## Sure we have to also look at the bulk of marxist analysis in print. But Trotsky, who died before WWII, is hardly the last word on a marxist position of the ussr. I said "today", meaning, let's say, at least since the fall of the ussr a little over 10 years ago; not in 1917 or in 1939. ## Leninists are not the only Marxists. ## Trotskyists do not make up the majority of marxists, either in the 30's, or today. ## Only Trotskyists (of the 30's and 40's) and Stalinists (prior to the death of Stalin) considered the USSR as something other than capitalist. ## Isaac Deutscher is something of a Trotskyist, so his mention must only to be to argue that he is one authority who says that the ussr was NOT capitalist. But given that his reasons are a simple rehashing of Trotsky's, (see "The Unfinished Revolution", and his " The Prophet" series), I'm not even sure how helpfull that is unless we are determining what is the majority view among 'marxist academics'. I can prove that Deutscher's view is also a minority in those halls, among other marxists. ## The majority of Trotskyist groups TODAY hold that the ussr was capitalist. Let me rephrase that. The majority of Trotskyists today hold that the ussr was capitalist. There may be more GROUPS that hold that it was not capitalist, i.e, a degenerated worker's statem, but these groups seldom have more than a dozen cadre. The post-trotskyist U.S SWP, interestingly, holds that Putin's Russia TODAY is a deformed worker's state, and that the U.S actually lost the cold war. An interesting analysis, but not the majority view among marxists either. Sure, both cases are a departure from trotskyism, but they still all consider themselves marxist. ## Max Shactman used Trotskyist methods, like Deutscher, and then pseudo-marxist methods later in describing, if i remember correctly, the ussr as a bureaucratic collectivist state, and later even, simply totalitarian. ## Off the top of my head, Karl Kautsky, Bordiga, Gramsci, Ruhle, ond others considered the USSR capitalist even before Trotsky fell into disgrace. ## Today, there are post-stalinist communist partys all over the world. Many have the position that the ussr was capitalist after stalin died. This is true among all maoists. How should I continue with this? Capone 22:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to claim -- in general -- what "most" people think. But perhaps you can reasonable say "most" Marxists believe this, if you wouldn't be satisfied to say that "many" or "smoe" Marxists believe this. All I can say is, I really look forward to your presenting evidence. I know Gramsci and Kautsky were critical of the USSR -- but where did they say it was capitalist? Do they mean, capitalist in the same way Germany or England is? About Maoists --is this a reference to the split after the 20th party congress? My basic advice is this: rather than claiming "marxists thinkt he USSR was capitalist," try to be more specific, nuanced, and concrete (this was Gramsci's critique, this was Mao's critique). That said -- such additions, although valuable, really belong on the USSR article page. What is important here is "what is Marxism." One need not say that all Marxists say the USSR was capitalist (a complex andf contentious claim that is better spelled out on the USSR page), all one needs to say here is that the USSR by no means had a monopoly on defining "Marxism," and that many marxists were critical of the USSR. Isn't this the relevant point, here? Slrubenstein

Basically I agree. In general, it is difficult to determine what most people think. Fortunately this is a specific issue and I proposed a methodology that you would accept before spending my time on this. It would be stupid to "prove something" (not original research, simple cross-referencing of already existing sources) in a manner which only satisfied my own standards. I still take issue with the characterization of my factual NPOV claims that most Marxists believe that the USSR was capitalist as being 'my opinion' when they most certainly not, and not even written grammatically in a manner which would seem to allude to that.

If there were more than just the three of us talking heads virtually staring at eachother in an empty room, I would demand a retraction. But, that not being the case, then, whatever.

I asked what methodology we could use to determine that, and I proposed a method that I mentioned in an earlier post. It is relevant what most marxists today think about those states which have existed that called themselves socialist in the marxist sense (excluding Nazis and Ba'ath whom were vehemently anti-marxist). Is it your position that there can be no methodology? What is your view? I am willing to do, or help to do, the work once we agree upon the methodology employed so no one wastes their time.

I think the encyclopedic information that may be of interest to potential readers is that which pertains to the theory of marxism. Marxism-Leninism and other variants need to be mentioned, if briefly, with links to the respective articles on those unique ideologies. The article is and should remain about Marxism, and not about Karl Marx the man as a man (biographically) and it shouldn't either be a repetition of what appears on the USSR, China, Communism, Satellite States, Warsaw Pact, and Socialism articles. I think it counts that Lenin, in his role as a prominent marxist and not as statesman, considered the USSR, for the brief few years of it that he lived through it, to be capitalist. Did Lenin and Gramsci and Bordiga and Mao all say it was capitalist for precisely the same reasons? Most certainly not, but it is of note that they did nonetheless state that this was the case. At least they agreed on the terminology, "state monopoly capitalism". They did not think it was identical to the capitalism of then England, USA, or Japan. But they agreed it was a form of capitalism, not of socialism. Some saw it as a step towards later socialism, in the case of Lenin and Stalin (prior to 1929 for stalin), while other marxists outside of the ussr considered it in various other ways.

The view that the USSR was socialist among marxists was only held among the various off-shoots of Stalinism, and one particular Sam Marcy and the WWP, one of the only pseudo-trotskyists to consider the ussr socialist. Off the top of my head, only the parties of the 3rd International after 1929-30 considered the USSR to be socialist. Prior to that, it was characterized by Preobhrezenski (sp?), Lenin, and Trotsky as worker's state (Lenin alludes to it already in 1922-23 containing bureaucratic deformations based materially in the failure of the German and Hungarian Soviet revolutions of 1919). Stalin, Lenin, and Bukharin say simultaneously the ussr was capitalist - state-monopolism - without a bourgeoisie (an interesting break with marxism IMHO). Again, these are intrigues among the soviet marxists, and the point I was making is that the marxism of the 3rd and 4th Internationalists do not speak for the marxists of the 1st and 2nd international.

So, in summation, it is relevant what the majority of marxists today think of the socialist states. It is significant that the stalinists and maoists who have large followings in the "developing" world also maintain that the ussr "was no longer" socialist and had become capitalist in 1956, because of the Khruschev re-organization of the economy and the further introduction of profit and competition within the various soviet enterprises.

Why this needs to be in the article somewhere is that this is about Marxism, from the 19th through 21st centuries. We already agreed that the article must account for the marxism of Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao - briefly, without repeating the articles on Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, etc. But there needs to be a mention, and most importantly, provide the relevent critiques of those marxisms from other marxist positions, which would not systematically appear on the other articles. Its relevent information, relevent to this article, but I think links to the other relevent articles should substitute any in depth repetitions of material found already in other related articles. Capone 23:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me remind you that I originally thought I was arguing with Silverback, not with you. If he misrepresented your views and if I then participatedin that misrepresentation, I apologize. I think you and I largely agree and I think our last entries to this talk page might provide the basis of what do do next. Basically, this article should posit that certain states were founded by "Marxists" and explain to what extent and in what way the founders of these states believed them to be "Marxist." It should also point out that even these founders (e.g. Lenin, I guess during the time of the NEP at least) did not always consider these states "Marxists," and that other Marxists did not accept them as Marxist." The first propositions is worth developing in this article; the second proposition should be made as succinctly as possible with links to articles on USSR, PRC, etc in which these issues are developed in a more nuanced way. You seem to be very well informed and I certainly encourage you to do this, if it seems reasonable to you. Slrubenstein

If you read the sequence, I think you will find that Capone was not "misrepresented". He sometimes states things crudely and for effect, and when called on it, is unwilling to back away from the original statements, and instead attempts to demonstrate his facility in defending or escaping them. The unwillingness to concede ground or respond on point in the face of criticism, is one reason why Marx's main influence on the field of philosophy has been to stimulate the study of Hegel. --Silverback 19:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've spent a little time trying to make heads and tails out of Silverback's last remark. Besides that it has contributed nothing to the discussion at hand, it is clear that Silverback has made the erroneous conclusion that I, somehow, am a Marxist. Referring to me: "The unwillingness to concede ground or respond on point in the face of criticism, is one reason why Marx's main influence on the field of philosophy has been to stimulate the study of Hegel." The assumption here, I assume (?) is that I am a Marxist engaging in typical Marxist obfuscation. Well, sorry you, but, um, no.

I do not feel I should even reply to anyone who has callously or stubbornly disregarded what I have said and instead substituted it with what they would have wanted me or imagined me to have said. Again, FOR THE RECORD, I said that other people said (in this case the majority of people who would consider themselves marxists of some sort)that the USSR was capitalist.

I did NOT say that I thought the USSR was capitalist, and certainly i did not state that Stalin was "A" capitalist. If you believe Lenin, then you can have a capitalist economy without a capitalist class. Even if you don't, it still would not neccessarily make Stalin "A" capitalist. Theoretically one could easily make the analogy of Stalin as being like any other statesman - I do not think that Lincoln, Ford, Nixon, or Clinton were capitalists even though they presided over states in where the economy was capitalist. In this argument, the capitalists weren't Lenin, Stalin, or Khruschev, but the NEPmen and Enterprise bosses. The Enterprise bosses of yesterday by in large became the actual official legal capitalists after 1992. Gorbachev and Yeltsin have by now faded into historical oblivion whereas the former Enterprise bosses now legally own the means of production and distribution that they formerly 'managed'.

I am researching at broadleft.com to get actual numbers in regards to factions, tendencies, and parties which considered the USSR to be state-capitalist or state-monopoly capitalist at some point prior to the rise of Reagan and Gorbachev's Glastnost and Perestroika. Again, this is very relevent in regards to "what marxism is, what it was, what it has become" etc. Cheers - Capone 22:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slight Change

I changed the part that read "revolutionary movements" which is not an article or even a stub yet, to, "revolutionary social movements" because social movements covers revolutionary movements in that article. Any objections, please notify. Capone 05:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is my first comment/edit on this site, so it might not be formatted right. I really think this is a bad article. The only thing I'm going to comment on is the part about Hegel. I think that the quote by Marx (the only sizable quote I noticed in the article) is inaccessable. I don't know if this was chosen intentionally for that purpose, or not. Does anyone think a reader would be much better served by a less convuluted quote from The German Ideology, where he describes the materialist base of his philosophy and its difference from the philosophy of Hegel much more cleary? --CFoster 05:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There has been a lot of back-and-forth on the subject of the Hegel/Marx relationshop already. You can see some of it in the archives. But, certainly, feel free to add pertinent quotations. --Christofurio 06:36, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracy

Since Marx's death in 1883, various groups around the world have appealed to Marxism as the intellectual basis for their politics and policies, which can be dramatically different and conflicting. One of the first major splits occurred between the advocates of social democracy, who argued that the transition to socialism could occur within a democratic framework, and communists, who argued that the transition to a socialist society required a revolution.

The way the split is dealt with here is misleading. It indicates that the 'communist' faction at the time of this split did not believe in democracy. More precisely the dispute was over reform or revolution.

I do not think these two views are mutually exclusive. Slrubenstein 18:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The communist faction believed that a big show down was inevitable (as marx had predicted) between the 2 contending classes. Combined with this was the belief that the ruling classes would intervene forcibly before allowing a marxist party to win an election. It must also be remembered that in many countries only pseudo-democracy existed (property qualifications and vote weighting disenfranchised many working class votes). Also even if they won an election it was accepted by this faction that the old order would strike back sooner or later.

So their belief in revolution has 2 parts.

1/ that they would probably need to make a revolution to seize power from the old order who would not give it up freely. 2/ once they had seized power (or won an election) they would need to carry out a revolution (expropiate the capitalists) to prevent an attempt by the old order to seize power back by force.

the social democrat faction (the revisionists) beleived no such show down was inevitable (bernstein and his followers that marx had been right but now needed 'updating'). The logical outcome of this was to say that as the capitalists as a whole did not need to crush the workers then there was no reason why a marxist party could not win an election and then reform capitalism out of existence.

So their correspoinding counter points to the need for a revolution is this

1/ no revolution is need, only pressure to ensure democratic refroms allowing them to win a fair election. 2/ once in power they can start reforms and purley need to be on guard against minority reactionary elements.

Thats too long winded to go in but any comments? I can do a simple summary of that to make the paragraph more accurate. I also think a bit more detail needs to go in about dates and the fortunes of each faction.

Social democracy resulted in the formation of the British Labour Party and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, while communism resulted in the formation of various communist parties.

Factually wrong. The German SDP was the No.1 Marxist party since 1875 and during the first split took the views of the 'communist' faction. It censorded Bernstein and his followers. It only becomes officially social democratic in August 1914 when it supported WW1. The same is true for nearly all the parties of the Second International.

The British Labour Party never was and never claimed to be a marxist party so it has nothing to do with a split in Marxism.

Good content. Can you just add it to the article, in a succinct and NPOV way? Slrubenstein 18:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need help

i have a project in school and i need some help. Could you request a site that has stuff about marxism in Russia?

Please check the articles on marxism around wikipedia, check marxist.com which has articles on all sorts of issues (check around the site, you'll find useful stuff), as well as their youth site newyouth.com, which has plenty of useful stats and articles that have helped me a lot. Also, check the impressive archive at marxists.org, which has sections especially for students and works by all sorts of marxist writers. I hope that helps. For a human interaction, to ask people questions, etc, check the forum in my sig :) -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Canon versus 'shorthand'

"Although the base-superstructure and stadialist formulations in the 1859 preface had come to take on canonical status in the subsequent development of orthodox Marxism, Marx merely indicated them as a short-hand summary ..."

this isn't especially well worded, but a deeper problem is that it appears somewhat wants wikipedia to tak sides on interpretive battles among Marxists. This seems to mean, "Some Marxists attach great importance to a certain passage, others think it is only 'shorthand,' -- the second group is right."

Am I wrong that this is what it means? --Christofurio 20:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

If we were discussing some other issue, your comment would be great. But in this context I am not sure it applies. Here, I think, the distinctiopn being made is not between some Marxists and other Marxists (though you are right this is an important distinction to make); here it is the distinction between what Marx actually claimed vs. how Marxists have interpreted/developed his claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm about as skeptical of having an encyclopedia adjudicate "what Marx actually claimed" as I would be about having it state what Jesus actually preached, as distinguished from all those false claims/interpretations thereof. Can't we just (a) quote the precise words at issue, (b) cite somebody specific who traets them as canonical, and (c) cite somebody else who has debunked that and said they are merely a shorthand? --Christofurio 19:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The difference between Marx and Jesus (well, one of them) is that whereas many doubt that Jesus said what the Gospels claim he said, no one — Stalin or J. Edgar Hoover – disputes which books were written by Marx, which were written by both Marx and Engels, and which were written by Engels alone or using Marx's quotes. The distinction I tried to express above is simply the distinction between quoting Marx versus quoting Lenin, Trotsky, Schachtman, Mao, Gramsci, Luxemborg, etc. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Still ... the passage in question concerns not just what Marx said, but how much weight to place upon particular expressions. That is necessarily a distinction among interpreters, as to which an encyclopedia should stay neutral. That Marx said X, that some Marxists believe X is crucial, that others believe X is a casual shorthand, are all facts. That X actually is a casual shorthand, so anyone who takes it as canonical is wrong ... that isn't a fact, its a POV. I've just made a change in the language here. I hope you'll find it appropriate. --Christofurio 04:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the change you made is okay, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

announcing a policy proposal of general interest to the community

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

172 vs. Trey

If this were the "Communism" page, I would have no objection to Trey's cuts since communism refers to something larger (more inclusive) than Marxism. But since this is the "Marxism" page, I think Trey's cuts are wrong. Perhaps what 172 wrote can be edited or rephrased, but in a page called "Marxism" — with "Marx" right in the title — it is relevant, appropriate, and necessary, to discuss ways in which communist countries diverge from Marxism. One caution to 172: please do not insert your own analysis. Finde sources you can cite. You know they are out there. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, I did not write any of the content in this article. I was merely reverting Trey Stone's additions. But I do agree with Trey Stone in that a great deal of the content that he removed was "original research." 172 01:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172, I apologize for my misreading. Of course, we all agree about not including original research. Perhaps we can figure out who added that material, and ask them for sources? Actually, I was just assuming you (or maybe El C) would know them off-hand). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to take another look at it, but I recall Trey Stone removing the content stating that Marx called for 'democratic control of production,' which differed from what was seen in the Soviet Union. As it stands right now, it should be removed, and restated with the citations. That argument, of course, is quite widely accepted among Western Marxist academics, but some stand out for driving that point home. In relatively recent literature, an interesting exponent of that thesis is Sydney Hook. Another is Michael Harrington. Both will probably be the best known among well read non-Marx specialists. They've never had to much to draw on, given the very limited amount of attention Marx paid to the state in Capital, but Marx's early work and articles like the Eighteenth Brumaire and the Civil War in France have stood out in their work. IMO I see some evidence for their argument, though with not much understanding on how he envisaged democratic control, particularly in "The Civil War in France." An excerpt that stands, e.g., is: From the very outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment. 172 09:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if you're interested in salvaging this point, let me know, and I'll post a footnote. 172 09:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why isnt there a "Criticism of" section?

Introduction too long

The introduction is too long! I don't want to read about what countries today are and or not Marxist before I read more about what Marxism is. Jdavidb 15:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia:Lead clearly states it should be no more then 3 paragraphs, and my own 'thumb' rule states if it takes more then one screen it is too long. Current intro has 6 paras/2 screens - it needs to be cut by half. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree too.

China is Marxist?

From the article:

"The death of "Marxism" in China has been prematurely announced but since the Hong Kong handover in 1997, the Beijing leadership has clearly retained final, Leninist, say over both commercial and political affairs. A sort of tacit consent, and a desire in China's case to escape the chaos of pre-1949 memory, probably plays a role."

Can anybody really stand up and say that today's Chinese government practices Marxist policies? That they exercise complete control over all political affairs is unquestioned but they have deviated from Marx's teachings to the degree that the party can no longer even be considered socialist. What's more it is widely accepted internationally, even amongst selfproclaimed Maoists, that China no longer subscribes to these policies.

Of course the term Leninist here could well be used to describe the party structure which is all well and good but leaves one question - what is it doing in an article on Marxism? I'll remove the paragraph if no one has any objections. GreatGodOm 15:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not up for us to decide this matter. The CPC declares itself a Marxist party and has its own stated reasons as to why this is the case, which we have to recognize in this article, but not necessarily buy into personally. 172 | Talk 15:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

And if they claim to have resurrected Marx and used him to invade Taiwan? I have no problem with references to Maoism, China's Marxist past or its legacy but describing the Party's policies as Marxist is a falsity. GreatGodOm 16:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

One could make that argument, but it is not false to state that the CPC declares its policies Marxist and state how it makes this argument. 172 | Talk 16:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Boy does this bring back memories (which I imagine 172 share) [3]. I think the thing here is to remember that NPOV and accuracy can work together. How the PRC identifies itself is important. That some people no longer consider China a Marxist regime is also important. That some people write of the death of communism in China is also important. I think all we need to do is include a paranthetical of two or at most three sentences designating the major positions, and who holds them. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Omission of Lewis Morgan

Shouldn't something be said about Marx drawing on Lewis H. Morgan and his social evolution theory? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. It did influence some of what he wrote in the Grundrisse. I believe it had a greater inpact on Engels, as is evident in Origins of Family Private Property and the State. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Marx wrote a collection of notebooks from his reading of Lewis Morgan but they are very obscure and only available in scholarly editions. Moreover from what I’ve heard not to well translated. I’d have to agree that Engles is far more influenced by Morgan and an influence which is much more easily recognised and evaluated. --Monty Cantsin 14:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revisionism vs 'Marxism

A few minor quibles with the 2nd paragraph

1 "One of the first major political splits occurred between the advocates of democratic socialism"

The advocates regarded there veiws as Marxist (i.e. Marx was right but now needed updating). Their opponents came to call it 'revisionism' as they were attempting to revise some of the basics of Marxism. Revisionism/Revisionists is the generally accepted term for Bernstein. I propose changing it to:

"One of the first major political splits occurred between the advocates of 'revisionism'"

2 "Social democracy (sometimes called "revisionism") emerged within the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and caused it to abandon its Marxist roots by increments, while communism resulted in the formation of various communist parties which became members of the Third International."

Not strictly true. We need to mention that 'revisionism' became dominant in most of the parties in the 2nd International. The actual split was caused when these parties then supported their own governments in World War One. The communists accused them of betraying socialism and formed their own parties and joined Lenin's Third International. I propose changing the paragraph too

"The 'revisionist' tendencey (later known as Social Democracy) came to be dominant in most of the parties affiliated to the Second International and these parties supported their own governments in World War One. This issue caused the communists to break away and form their own parites which became members of the Third International"

Excellent orgional work by the way, I just feel the proposed changes make it more accurate and helps any new person navigate the subject. Any objections? TheInquisitor 20:45, 30 Sep 2005

Historcial Materialism

Maybe I am simply not seeing it, but should not Historical Materialism be discussed as probably the main idea of Marxism? It's the unifying concept of Marxist ideas, and it is this that differentiates it from socialist conceptions in general.

This article makes Marxism seem too much like simply another version of socialist thought, and i think this is both an injustice to Marx, as well as misleading. It is probably impossible to understand why Marxism is so special as an idea without a detailed discussion of Historical Materialism. What are your thoughts? Dietwald 17:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

So what is Marxism?

I read the first paragraph of the summary and the skimmed the rest, and I don't know what Marxism is. Seeing as that is kind of important, shouldn't it be the second or third sentence?

Some things are easy to explain in one sentence. But some things can never be explained in one, two, or three sentences. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that some things are difficult to explain, but after reading most of this, I am still not sure on what Marxism is, and I would be very interested on it.

The key idea of Marxism is historical materialism. THAT'S what differentiates Marxism from run-of-the-mill socialism. Incidentally, historical materialism is bollocks. :) Dietwald 13:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to underscore what Slrubenstein said. Any encyclopedia article should immediately describe and define the topic within the first paragraph. This article fails to do that. It creates the frustrating situation where every reader wanting to know what Marxism is doesn't find it in this article, or at least the first section. The primary goal of an encyclopedia article is to define and describe the topic. This article fails to do that. Joema 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed. 131.111.8.102 23:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, and I think this is a real problem. After all, we're not writing only for philosophy majors, we're also writing for others who want to find out what Marxism is, as simply and accessibly as possible (I'm convinced that the current article's description is as complicated and difficult for a non-philosophy expert to understand as can be). Can someone PLEASE fix this? I'm not knowledgabe enough. Sarah Marie 02:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unreconstructed Marxism redirects here and is linked to form a featured article but ....

.... is not mentioned anywhere on the page. I just followed the link curious to see what the diffrence between the term Unreconstructed Marxism and Marxism was. The redirect and subsequent lack of mention on the page implies that they are equvilent. Is this the case? Dalf | Talk 07:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It should not redirect here. An unrecontructed Marxist is in fact a Marxist, but there's a very key difference: To be unreconstructed means that you don't accomodate yourself to social and economic changes. When applied to Marxism, it generally refers to a Marxist who doesn't believe the Cold War was lost. 70.48.111.76 14:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you too mate, it doesn't even defines anything about marxist. Let's see if a student wants to know about about marxist this article will not help this poor student, so for god's sake make this shit useful thank you

Popper

The criticism of Popper is presented a little simplistically. Bascially, Popper has shown that Marxism once was a scientific idea until historical events contradicted it. Since then, holding on to Marxism has become unscientific. I'll include this into the discussion soon with appropriate references to Popper's writings. Dietwald 13:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Perversion of Marxism

Marxism remains a dream yet to be incorporated. In China and Russia and Germany it was perverted into Fascism.

Ah, yes. Funny Marxism tends to be corrupted this easily into something 'else' EVERY BLOODY TIME it is attempted to be used as a principle of running a country.....Dietwald 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's something for Dietwald which saves me from writing a novel: http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/462/462_08_Stalin.shtml

You might want to trouble yourself, though. Seems that nobody, anywhere, at any time, has ever used Marxism as the basis of a political system that does not deserve the moniker: dysfunctional and murderous. Seems that Marxist philosophy serves as a really neat basis of power for maniacs and mass-murderers. Dietwald 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, right. Marxist philospohy 'has' served as a basis for mainiacs and mass-murderers, but capitalists, such as Bush, Cheney, are they not also running a war? Is that not also called 'mass-murdering'? Why would you isolate Marxism to popular subjects of debate such as Stalin, but not refer to the wars of capitalists? Also, imperialism is a huge sort of capitalism.

daejiny 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying imperialism comes from capitalism? Imperialism is MUCH MUCH older then capitalism and there are plenty of cases of "communist" states engaging in imperialism. And to be fair the United States is a mixed economy(elements of socialism and capitalism) and there have been no truly capitalist countries in more then 100 years. --Jayson Virissimo 08:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: The Perversion of Marxism

It depends on how you define communism. If you mean Marxis-Leninist communism, then I can name two countries that, while they haven't reached full on communism yet, are well on their way. Venezuela and Cuba. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but as far as the US goes, all we're ever told is how terrible Castro and Chavez are. Well, have youever been to Cuba? To Venezuela? If you had, you'd see that it is very hard to find people who do not emphatically support their country's leader. And why wouldn't they? Do you ever hear about the heath care system in Cuba, or how when the US wanted to examine Venezuela's prison sytem, Chavez said that would be fine provided the US allowed an investigation of US prisons such as Abu Ghraib, the US immediately backed off.

If you mean any type of communistic living, then I can point to many times in history where man has experienced peaceful, communal living.

And, of course, Capitalism is completely free of corruption, right?

Oh come now do you really want to defend Venezuela? According to the British magazine The Economist the murder rate in Caracas has tripled since Chavez has taken office and Transparency International ranks Venezuela high on their list of countries where government corruption has greatly increased. Trying to defend communism is one thing but using examples like the ones you brought forward are not helping your case. --Jayson Virissimo 08:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Marx and personal property

Regarding the questions about the elimination of personal property, I is important to point out (and is absolutely NPOV) that Marx did not advocate the abolition of personal property, as has often been suggested when critiquing Marxism. Marx saw the accumulation of personal property to be inevitable. What Marxism certainly does advocate is the abolition of independent control of the means of production, the factories, farms and tools and facilities used for the production of goods by the labor force. Freddie deBoer 21:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Communism can be summed up in one sentence;Abolition of private property-MARX He means land property, be more clear on what type of property you are talking about.

Re: Marx and personal property

No, you're getting mixed up with socialism. Communism has two features: abolition of the state and class.

Socialism has three: abolition of private property, popular control of the state and popular control of the means of production.

User:Merlov 10:12, 11 March 2006

Re: Re: Marx and personal property

I think you are the one that is confused. Marx clearly states "that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation." BOURGEOIS property. Does your house exploit your fellow man? Your clothes?

Where did you get your information?

Socialism (though some socialists may disagree) is a stepping stone between capitalism and communism, a time in which the proletariat must rise to power. A time of "from each according to his ability to each according to his DEEDS" before "from each according to his ability to each according to his NEEDS."

How is capitalism "according to his DEEDS"? You think investors do anything?? -- infinity0 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Investors research companies and supply money for chosen companies to grow and/or get off the ground. If it wasn't real work I would have already made millions of dollars doing it believe you me! --Jayson Virissimo 07:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say that capitalism was like that. Cadr 18:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"from each according to his ability to each according to his DEEDS" This is also exactly what Hitler wanted his "national" socialism to be. He only differed from "international" socialism by his assumption that every race had a secret duty trying to rule over other races. So that in the end the strongest race would survive and the evolution of the human race would proceed in accordence to the natural laws embedded in G-d's creation.

post-marxism

the post-marxism article was pointing to neo-communism, i split it out, but it will need much work to get it up to a basic level. if people are interested, please contribute what you know, edit my starter drivel :), and help build that article too. --Buridan 13:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

gah!?

why would you ever delete the 'base-superstructure' position, it is the most important and instrumental thing related to marxism, explain yourself or face more angry comments!

vandalism

I've been looking through the history and have noticed that there were a lot of vandalisms that weren't fixed. Could someone fix them??!! Starhood` 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Since what date? -- infinity0 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Link spamming mises.org

Note to User:Vision_Thing. Here is some text from Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer:

Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product. Going through an article and adding the name of your product to every paragraph where it seems relevant is just going to attract the revert button.
Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not very much fun.

Please show some sense of proportion and please stop spamming this and other pages with multiple links to mises.org material.--Cberlet 12:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Five is hardly "many". Also, all links are relevant to the article, are form different authors and they can be found only on mises.org. -- Vision Thing -- 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles about Marxism on the web. One link from Mises.org is plenty, and some would say it is one link too many. --Cberlet 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs a better opening

This article needs a much better opening in my opinion. The opening paragraph should have a clean-cut definition of Marxism. It currently does not. If one wants just a general answer to "What is Marxism?", they have to do a lot of reading. --JOK3R 22:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally Agree - I looked up this article because I wanted to know what Marxism was. All I am told is "Marxism is based upon the works of Karl Marx"... now that bit I knew.

Well, I would say that trying to explain Marxism in just a few sentences is a great feat in itself; after all, "Das Kapital" was a whole 4 volumes at the time of publication. Anarkial 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Help

Dear friends! I'm your colleague from Russian part of Wikipedia. I have a question but I can't find an answer :-). As for me, the base of history development explanation is formed by the statement that each socio-economic system has inherent contradictions that can't be solved within this system. And these contradictions are the main force that moves systems (you see that this statement coincides with Marx's conception of development). With capitalism everything is o'kay. If I'm right, these contradictions are the contradiction between social production and privat ownership, the contradiction between labour and capipital etc. But what about contadictions that move pre-economic society and modes of production within the economic epoch (slave-owning system, feudalism)? Asiatic mode of production? I can suppose, that they are surpluses of products (pre-economic epoch), contradiction across classes, but I'm not sure… Could you help me? Катерина Альт (Katerina Alt)

I guess (no times to look for references just now to prove my claim) that for Marx, class contradictions only became central in capitalism. It seems to me that Marx, whom concentrated in particular on capitalism (and on some specific types of capitalism; he always payed attention to various, national, types - see comments at end of article on Russia's community property system end of 19th century), didn't have much time for analyzing other systems; but it does seems that the main contradiction remains, in all type of societies, between means of production and productive forces, doesn't it? This conception would follow from his materialism, and he had no time to complete it by closer analysis of feudal, Asian or "primitive" social formations. Santa Sangre 12:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

An Edit Question

Well, I was just looking at the history of the most current edit, but I saw that someone has exchanged "major" for "minor" when talking about the Marxists role in history. I would like to know why, before I revert. Anarkial 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a POV warrior's edit. I say revert it.

KV 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Liberal Challenge"

I suggest a new title to this section, as it makes it seem marxists and liberals are enemies. This isnt the case, just a simple re naming will do just fine. Zhukov 04:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More Sources

This article is well thought out and well written, you must have used more then one source in writing it. Did you even read the communist manfesto or das kapital? Those are both sutible sources. Just more then one is needed. Zhukov 04:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing a sentence in the intro

The introduction says 'He as a communist believed that a violent revolution would be the catalyst in the transformation from capitalism to socialism.' Two points, firstly "as a communist" !!! what the hell! that's terribly POV for the introduction of this article. Secondly, violent is contraversial, and without any sources from Marx whatsoever definitely seems to be POV. I would like to delete both these bits from the sentence, leaving it as He believed that a revolution would be the catalyst in the transformation from capitalism to socialism, and if people want to talk about either they can add it in a section somewhere where it is accompanied by evidence. JenLouise 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Major re-work needed of this page

This page is on Marxism, but if someone came to this page I don't think they would have any idea what marxism (as a theoretical framework or sociological/political persepctive or a way of analysing capitalism) actually is.

All the stuff on the Hegelian roots of Marxism is interesting but it doens't really tell us about Marxism. I think it would be better off on the Marxist philosophy page, does anyone else have thoughts on this?
The section on the liberal challenge also does not belong here. I think it should be moved to Criticisms of Marxism.
To me this article should look something like:
- Marx's marxism: Which basically details what Marx had to say about the mode of production, class and the relationship between the base and superstructure, etc. I have read the above thing about moving this stuff to Marx's page, but it should definitely feature in this article as the starting point for everything the came aftewrards. Even if its just a description of his key concepts rather than an analysis of his works. You can't understand marxism without knowing about the above stuff as well as class consciousness, ideology, transformation of labour to value, etc. etc. It should probably mention historical materialism, as a basic theoretical framework but then link to the historical materialism page for detail, and it shouldn't really need to go into political economy (especially as this is treated on the Karl Marx page) and but we can debate this.
- Marxism since Marx: Looking at how academics have used/stretched/distorted/expanded marxism while Marx was alive, after marx's death and in its revival, which could probably be just a summary of Western Marxism with a link to the Western Marxism page. This could include the revisionist marxism where academics tried to expand marxism to be able to counter some of the criticisms. It should probably look at humanist marxism strains, strucutral marxist strains and possibly touch on how the marxist roots of feminism.
- Neo-Marxism: This doesn't need to be too indepth but should summarise and it could link to Neo-Marxism.
- Post-Marxism: The body of knowledge that has arisen recently which began with the basic tenets of Marxism but has moved away from the Mode of Production as the starting point for analysis and includes factors other than class, such as gender, ethnicity etc, and a reflexive relationship between the base and superstructure. This doesn't need to be too indepth but should summarise and then link to Post-Marxism.
It could then go into the relationship between Marxism and socialism/communism, talking about marxism-leninism, how socialist/communist parties/governments proclaimed themselves as Marxist and look at what they took from marxism, but then analyse how they really aren't marxist in any sense because they don't actually follow any of Marx's ideas and precepts.

What do people think? If there's not much discussion about the first two points I'll probably move those bits early next week. I won't start a major rewrite of the article unless/until we can discuss the best way of doing it. JenLouise 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the two sections, Hegelian roots of marxism and the Liberal Challenge as specified above. JenLouise 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello JenLouise! Please proceed cautiously on such obviously controversial pages. Not that your move is entirely unjustifiable, but you can't just delete whole sections of a page (I know you moved them, but each article is supposed to be autonomous per Wikipedia guiderules, so in effect, you deleted them from here). If you think they should be shortened and contents moved, all right, please see Wikipedia:Article size (and special part on long pages) and Wikipedia:Summary style. In other words, you removed content here that seems, IMO, necessary to the comprehension of Marxism, at least as much as the sections you decided to keep. If you consider repeating this edit, please either find time here on talk page to justify why these sections would be unappropriate, and why they should be at worse deleted, at best kept after a small copy-edit. Santa Sangre 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Santa Sangre, I did very quickly offer my reasons for a move and left it on the page for almost a week with no response, so went ahead and did it. (I said: All the stuff on the Hegelian roots of Marxism is interesting but it doens't really tell us about Marxism. I think it would be better off on the Marxist philosophy page, does anyone else have thoughts on this?) However since someone now does have an opinion on this I am more than happy to discuss it first, which is what I was trying to acheive originally. Basically I don't think these sections contribute anything to an understanding of Marxism. These sections are the Hegelian roots of Marx's works - and therefore perhaps should be on the Karl Marx page but Marxism as a body of knowledge and a framework for analysing society (particularly capitalist societies) has nothing to do with Hegel really at all, except in understanding what motivated Marx to begin writing. Therefore I think it has very little relevance at all. I have read both the links you provided but I don't think that this move falls under the category because I don't think the information should be here at all - it's not really about article length or anything. If you can explain to me why understanding the very long and convoluted Hegelian roots of Marx's work is important in understanding Marx, then I am more than happy to leave it here. But if it is the case that it is relevant then I definitely think that it is way out of proportion to the the relevant information in the article. I would think it should just be very short and sweet, such as Much of Marx's work developed in response to Hegel, blah blah, see [[Marxist Philosophy#Hegelian Roots]]. (Though at this stage I still don't beleive it should be here at all.) JenLouise 04:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your actual proposal for the article, if you're up for a rewrite along these lines, you are encouraged to do so. Good luck! However, please consider doing such a massive rewrite on a draft page (sandbox; see also Wikipedia:Subpages. We can then discuss the contents together, and eventually decide to substitute your new and more coherent version with the ancient one, or at least make some modification to the current one according to your proposals. If you're up for it, that may be very interesting and useful, as Wikipedia pages tend to lose coherence over time, and probably need some global rewrite from time to time — all of this respecting Wikipedia consensual procedures makes it a difficult move to do. Using summer times (in the North hemisphere at least!) to do this might be a good idea, as we have to cope with less overstressed students looking for distraction from the essay they should really be writing (instead of "losing time" on Wikipedia...) Cheers! Santa Sangre 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Trust me I had absolutley no intention of changing anything without massive consultation. My idea was to go away and write it completely in word so that I know it's coherent and makes sense, and then present it for discussion. (The sandbox is a good idea!) However I won't even begin to rewrite it until I have some feedback on what people think would be a good structure because I am not going to waste my time and effort if people then largely disagree with it once its done. With regards to timing, I'm from Australia and have my own uni work to concentrate on so I will just do bits and pieces as the time arises.JenLouise 04:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any reference to Hegel should be removed from here. The young Marx's break with the Young Hegelians and German Idealism is fundamental, beside being famous. You may think about summing it up if you feel it's given undue space, but globally, it is important to know where Marx's philosophical background comes from and with what he brokes with. One is always born somewhere, and this applies even (more) to Marx (than to anybody else). The XIth thesis on Feuerbach on the necessity to transform the world, and not only to interpret it as had done previous (Idealist) philosophers, is one of Marx's most famous statement, and certainly is relevant. And how would you understand it if not as a break from previous Idealism? And, first of all, with the German Idealists and Hegel's phenomenology of the Spirit? Etc. etc. Santa Sangre 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to JenLouise adding noew information. i have two objections though to her rewrite (and I am just being frank, I am not trying to discourage her efforts to improve the article). first, I think it is a misleading distortion to talk aabout Marx's Marxism. The very word "Marxism" suggests a systematic ideology. Marx himself did not use the word "marxist" and claimed not to be proposing an ideology. in other words, arxism not being marx's term, there can be no "Marx's Marxism." While Marx himself may have believed his work was always consistent and systematic (I say he may have, I would still want to know where he said this as i do not know that he did), some historians of marx have suggested breaks in his thought. In other words, Marx may not even have had a "marxism" but rather several different "marxisms" over time. Second, I think the stuff on hegel - and other historical sources/antecedents (esp. Proudhon, Feuerbach, and Engels) - are important; people should understand Marx's "Marxisms" in their historical context, and understand their origins. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what both of you are saying but I guess I conceive of Marxism in a different way to you. I definitely agree with you that the influence on Marx's work, such as Hegel and Feuerbach etc, is very important in understanding Marx's work. However I believe that this information should therefore be on the page about Marx's work, which to me logically, would be Marx's page, ie. Karl Marx. This being a page on Marxism and not Marx, I strongly believe it shouldn't be here, and if it is, only in a very summarised form. In term's of "Marx's marxism", that was very poor phrasing, and it would not be the heading used, I was just trying to conceptualise the flow of the article, but it would be a section which examines those bits of Marx's work which had a large influence on the body of theory/practice which grew up and is now known as Marxism. I conceive of Marxism as being (but not limited too) all of the stuff I mentioned above, such as western marxism, marxism-leninism, etc - but of course the article would trace the development and divergence of all these areas from their original basis in Marx's work. That said alot of Marx's work would not appear on this page, for precisely the reason that Slrubenstein has said. Inconsistency can be found in much of Marx's work, especially between the Young Marx and later work, and so only that part of Marx which has obviously and directly contributed to Marxist theory would be on this page. All other work would be on Marx's page. JenLouise 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, reasonable, but I would add this: "marxists" (meaning Lenin, Luxemberg, Marcues - as eclectic a lot as you wish) often refer to Marx's sources (e.g. Hegel, Feurbach, Ricardo) in developing their own readings of Marx. I think it is a reasonable rule of thumb that any sources Marx relied on that continued to influence Marxists or debates among Marxists should be covered in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never come across very much reference to Hegel in marxist writing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Do you know any specific references I can look up? It would help in writing a summarised version that can link to an expanded version in ~~Karl Marx or Marxist philosophy~~ Influences on Karl Marx. JenLouise 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks reflect a prolonged engagement with hegel; Lukács also relied heavily on Hegel - History and Class Consciousness is virtually unintelligible without a Hegelian framework, ditto Karl Korsch. Alexandre Kojève and a host of French existentialist-Marxists influenced by him, including, in different ways, Merleau-Ponty, Henri Lefebvre and Jean-Paul Sartre, also engaged Hegel in their readings of Marx. I think if we are talking about "Marxism" as something different from just "Karl Marx," what he personally believes and did, then we must include the ideas of these men (among others). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I've just not had much to do with some of the people you mention, so perhaps we can work to expand the new article Influences on Karl Marx to explore the numerous ways that Marx was influenced by Hegel, Feuerbach, and the many others, and then summarise the salient points for the marixsm article. JenLouise 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call myself an expert on them either. My suggestion: read the articles on these men and just take them into consideration as you think about the structure of the article(s) you suggest. Then, see if you can find who has worked most on these other articles especially as regards their marxism, or post messages on the talk pages asking for input from people who know their work well. They represent currents of Marxism that this article ought to include. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Created prototype of proposed new article

I am currently attempting a rewrite of the Marxism page, and am doing so through a sub-page of my user page User:JenLouise. I have created three pages, to help with this:

The Marxism old page is simply to show what I propose to do with the current information in the article. (Whether it will go in the new article or be moved somewhere else.)
The Marxism proposed will be a prototype of the new article. This is for anyone to edit (but please leave detailed comments on the Marxism discussion page).
The Talk:Marxism proposed page is where everyone can discuss the proposed article. (Possibly some people will think that the content of this page should be here on Talk:Marxism but I imagine (and hope) that it is going to be very lengthy, and it would be troublesome to have to keep going back and forth between two separate pages. Perhaps once its done (or as sections get too long), it can be copied and archived onto this page?

I really want to see the Marxism page be great, but I can't do that all on my own, so please come and check out the proposed article and add your thoughts and suggestions! JenLouise 00:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New page: Influences on Karl Marx

I have created a new page Influences on Karl Marx, synthesising some of the material from the Karl Marx page and this one. Alot of it (expecially the french socialist influences, and the direct influences by Adam Smith and David Riccardo - as opposed to political eonomy in general) is still quite bare. Would be great for people to flesh it out a bit. JenLouise 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Mind-reading?

From the entry:

Instead, Marx would have described such self-proclaimed "socialist" states as the Soviet

Union or China as workers' states, a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism.

This seems to border on the clairvoyant. Who says he would have described the USSR and China that way, anyway? Besides my own personal disagreement, this speculation just seems extraneous; if the point is to analyze the USSR, etc. in the Marxism entry, we could include Marxist analyses, and not attribute things to Marx that don't belong to him. --Dialecticas 03:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. We should eliminate anything like this, and if possible replace it with verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Marx was an Athiest

Marx was an Athiest; changing to reflect this