Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Family Decendants

In the Biography section it does not talk about his decendants. I would like to add this information but I cannot edit the article. How can I edit the article here. Marx01 (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms - labour theory of value

In the Criticisms section it is written that "The Austrian School of economics has criticized Marx's use of the labour theory of value." Actually all mainstream modern economists think that labour theory of value is not correct. Can somebody improve this statement? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be changed to 'There has been much criticism of Marx's use of the labour value theory, notably so from the Austrian school of economics', although It might be weasel wording If it isnt properly sourced.R.G.P.A (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What about something like "Marx uses labour theory of value to derive his theory of exploitation under capitalism, however most contemporary economists think that labour theroy of value is incorrect." --Doopdoop (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess you would have to find a source stating the most part, which might be difficult, but I dont know, at least we know that the Austrian school criticises the labour value theory.86.143.98.33 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW im R.G.P.A86.143.98.33 (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

you have to understand Marx came up with this in 1800s, it might hold true at that time, but not now. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm founder of communism? you are taking this piss right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.179.222 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitism ?"

Excuse me, but, how can someone who was or is Jewish be 'Anti-Jewish' (i.e. "Anti-Semitic")?????????!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I cut down on the number of question marks in the subject heading. Hope thats ok. I know that this is a periodic debate in this article. Marx didn't really identify as a Jew, so I don't think that's an issue. I do think that this article gives to much weight to those who argue that he was an anti-semite. Having actually read "On the Jewish Question," I think its pretty clear that Marx's argument was that Jews need to have emancipation from capitalism (i.e. end capitalist alienation), not just political emancipation. Many quotes in the text can be said to be anti-semitic, but Marx ultimately is in favor of both political and economic emancipation of Jews, so it should be made clear that the fundamental arguments of OJQ are not anti-semitic and are, at least for Marx, actually pro-Jew. I'll make edits soon unless someone beats me to it.--Bkwillwm (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep your personal interpretations out of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just my interpretation. I added a source to appease you. We can work out a decent section if we actuallly work at it. Reverting someone elses attempt to move to NPOV is not productive towards this. Right now the section is in very bad shape. It makes many stretches to portray Marx as an antisemite. Marx barely discussed Judaism in his many volumes of work, so pretending that antisemitism is central to his work is extremely misleading. I think the best section would be one that says Marx used antisemitic terms and there is further debate, etc. Right now there is a great deal of weight given to scholars who say Marx was antisemitic; however, none of these are even scholars of Marx. Most of the works cited deal with antisemtism, not Marx. They are not the best sources for understanding Marx. If you have a source from an actual Marx scholar, that would be great. P lease just go ahead and read "On the Jewish Question." It's short and it's clear Marx isn't attacking Jews, as you imply. Also, claims that Marx thought Jews thought Jews were the source of capitalism are absurd. Can you actually supply quotes from the writers you claim say this? I can't believe any serious scholar would make such a claim. Marx wrote thousands of pages on the origins of capitalism and makes almost no mention of Jews being connected to it. Not in OJQ or elsewhere. Additionally, claims that Marx inspired antisemites don't really belong here. It has no bearing on whether he was an antisemite or not. If anywhere, this should be in the legacy section. Finally, I added a perfectly legitimate citation where Marx argued for Jewish political emancipation and you just reverted it out. This is extremely poor editing. At least discuss why you removed it. I have tried to explain why I removed most of your sentences.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The section on anti-semitism is far too long, and thus POV by virtue of undue weight. The section relates almost entirely to On The Jewish Question, which is generally considered one of Marx's minor works, so it is out of place that it has such an extended discussion in this article (and OTJQ does have it's own article); furthermore, I don't think anti-semitism is among the most notable criticisms levelled at Marx (the economic, historical, and philosophical criticisms in the Criticism section are all more notable). It seems to me it would be appropriate to replace the current "Alleged Anti-Semitism" section with a couple of sentences in the Criticism section (and the material from "Alleged anti-Semitism" could be moved to On the Jewish Question as appropriate). VoluntarySlave (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think. It is only important what secondary sources say. Per WP:OR: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. On other point, scholars of Marx are mostly those who are sympathetic to his views so most of them are probably not totally objective on this. Also, I can't believe that you think that experts on anti-Semitism are not best sources to establish whether Marx was anti-Semite. It's like saying that someone's biographer is better than a doctor in diagnosing whether that person is sick or not. -- Vision Thing -- 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy also says article space on a subject should be portioned roughly according to its prominence in academic literature. Right now, antisemitism makes up a sizable portion of the article, but does not generally seem to be a significant topic in scholarship on Marx. For comparison's sake, neither Encarta nor the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy even mention antisemitism. I haven't found much on Marx's antisemitism in several major books on him. I did find a few articles on the subject and I'll add material from them. However, I think this section has been blown out of proportion. I'm going to make a good faith edit based on the research.

Also, you didn't address why it's relevant that anti-Semites have supposedly been influenced by Marx. This has nothing to do with whether he was anti-Semitic.

--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Section could be significantly shortened by removing two largest quotes. Part about him influencing anti-Semites could go into "Marx's influence" section. -- Vision Thing -- 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The (end) section quoting Hal Draper is unneccessarily long and not directly related to the issue. Remove that and the atni-semitism section will be shorter and more directly to the point. It's got too long because its controversial. How do you decide what is a "notable criticism?".

Telaviv1 (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section is too long. Draper's quote could go. I think most of this section has a place in Wikipedia, but it is given undue weight in this article. The topic of anti-semitism should probably be moved into the criticism section and condensed to a paragraph. It should be moved to On the Jewish Question, or an article on Marx's antisemitism could be started.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Bkwillwm but 20 days has passed but nothing changed. So can we move anti semitism section to criticism part? IMO, that s nonsense to accuse Marx being an anti semitic, because he wrote many pages about many things and this small quote only shows the sociological view of judaism. And what`s that sentence "Jonathan Sacks has written that virtually all major enlightenment philosophers were antisemitic, including Voltaire, Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche." It is not objective. Is it so easy that to accuse these thinkers being anti semitic by giving some references to some Rabbi s ?? I can make many references, because some religious people are saying "Marx is the enemy of the people, because he is against nations and religions and family, and blabla person says that all communists are the same", so is it okey? Anyway I ll move this section into criticism part or to the On the Jewish Question article. -- 85.107.160.10 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This section falsely names as an enlightenment philosopher, who wrote a good hundred years after Voltaire and Kant, and is better described as a romantic or existentialist. Also, given the extreme nature of the quotation form Marx's "On the Jewish Question", is it really appropriate to saddle Kant, Hegel, Voltaire, and "virtually all major enlightenment philosophers" with having similar views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.50.58 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, that "on the jewish question" should be held as one of the first significant anti-racist tracts in the enlightenment. It was in defence of the liberation of minority groups, not just jews. This is about the protection of minority rights in view of an over powerful state! Surely this is significant as a German writer! I suspect that many of those who read it as an anti-semitic text do so because of the anti-semitism that existed under Stalinism and are unfortunately conflating Stalinism as the realisation of Marx's thought (which of course is inaccurate).--Daniel jones (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Jones' interpretation is entirely correct. Furthermore, Visionthings claim that"experts on anti-semitism are the best sources to establish whether someone was an anti-semite" is nonsense, because of course there is no such thing as an expert on anti-Semitism. It cannot be claimed that a bunch of scholars over at Tel Aviv somehow have the authority to declare who's an anti-semite and who's not. There are plenty of scholars who are just as well-versed (almost certainly better versed) in Marx's literature who do not claim he was an anti-semite, and just because they are supposedly not "experts on anti-semitism" does not mean that their views are less important. I think the section needs to be greatly reduced. The Darwin page does not feature the creationist hit-job on him that tries to argue that if you take a few of his paragraphs out of context it shows he supported social Darwinism - it does not feature it because it is just a hit-job. The claims of anti-semitism form a hit-job of little more value, and so should be at the very least cut down.JohnyGoodman (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

JG, you just reverted me. Please reconsider. I agree that the whole section should be shorter. i will not comment on Daniel jones' comment because my point is not who is right but NPOV. The edit that I reverted removed a good deal of material that described how complex and controversial the claim that KM was an anti-Semite is. That edit left readers thinking KM was an anti-Semite, plain and simple. it is not plain and simple and I reverted on NPOV grounds - the view that KM was not an anti-Semite needs to remain in the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion in WikiProject Human rights

I have added this article to the Human rights project because Karl Marx and Marxism has a bearing on human rights in a number of different ways. Karl Marx is referenced directly from Human rights because of his theories on property and surplus value, and the effect this has on the right to own property (from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Marx, and communism, also advocates many of the ecomonic and social rights which are included in the UDHR and which have historically marked the different approach to rights taken by the east and the west. Tkn20 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Marx's theory was also used to counter notions of indivudal rights and resulted in the most murderous regimes in Human history. Nearly 2/3 of all people killed by governments were killed by Marxist-Leninist governments (about 110 million). See [[1]]

Telaviv1 (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am really writing this post to counter the claims that Marxism has direct responsibility for human rights violations, or the regimes it has inspired, (although admittedly at the end of the day Marxism may hold some indirect reponsibility). I think the first person who posted may have a point, however to Telaviv one, although i agree with you that nearly every 'communist' regime has become a tyranny or mobocracy, you also have to realise that nearly every communist regime has not been at all orthodox Marxist. In orthodx marxism (which I dont support) Russia in 1917 would not have been fit to enter communism because it was mainly inhabited by a majority of agriculturalists, it was backwards, and most of its populace was uneducated or illeterate. China qualified even less, as it was totally backwards, and Mao basically disregarded orthodox Marxism, not to even mention cambodia or vietnam. I dont think was perfect, and I am no communist, but I think ideas can be learnt from every notweworthy philosophy, even Marx. You also have to realise Marx's motive for supporting communism was moral/ideological, whereas perhaps with the majority of revolutionary communists the reasons were nationalistic or materialistic, and therefore more associated with the right. What I am saying is that if Marx dictated that communist states should function as they have and do today, yes maybe human rights violations would deserve a mention, but his ideology is not to blame, it is the [people who follow his ideology who often commit the crimes.86.150.147.133 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC) User: R.G.P.A

On The Jewish Question

The claim, in the original article, attributed to Bauer, to the effect that "Those critics who see this as a foretaste of Mein Kampf overlook one essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defence of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians."

is entirely idiotic: Bauer emphatically does not think Jews should be baptized! On the contrary, he says that 'the basis of the state must be secular', because only then will every Jew, Christian and Muslim be treated as equals. Has any one of these people who call Marx and/or Bauer an antisemite ever read Marx and/or Bauer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.10.170 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read Bauer and you may be right about him but I have read "On the Jewish Question" and there is no doubt in my mind that it is antimsemitic. I suggest that you read it again. - especially the second half.

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The section on Marx's alleged anti-semitism is way too big for the article. Its out of porportion given the vast scope of his ideas and as such is undue-weight. I see another editor attempted to address this issue but apparently there needs to be some discussion about it. Does anyone object to making that section more concise and trimming it to a section called, "On the Jewish Question?," linking the the larger article on the sub-topic for greater depth? The proposed edit here, shortening this to one paragraph pointing to the larger article seems about the right size, but I'm open. Thanks.[2]Giovanni33 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since anti-Semitism is prevalent in formerly communist countries, I do not think giving a lot of space to Marx's anti-Semitism is giving undue weight. I'm still shocked as to how anti-Semitic he was, especially given his "Jewishness" (yes, that descriptive can be argued forever, but is basically just a relevant point to me). There is one editor who is both Jewish and an avowed Marxist, and I would ask that he weigh in. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Lets see what other editors think about the material as it currently exists and the suggestion to trim it down a bit. I will say that an article on Karl Marx is quite separate from things found in former 'communist" countries. The connection between the two is tenuous at best. The essay On the Jewish Question, while it contains, out of context, some rather ugly use of the language that appears to be quite anti-semitic on its surface--hence the shock-- I think you are mistaken about Marx being anti-semitic, in fact. Its a richly layered essay that was an early piece of writing for Marx in a private latter to Bruno, arguing against him, in defense of Jewish rights, among other issues not related to Jews per se. I think you have to read the entire thing and the letter from Bruno to appreciate this. For a discussion see:[3] [4]

Back to the issue of Marx's view and "Communist States" practice, you should be equally compelled by the fact that the Marxist Left strongly supported the defense of Jewish civil and political rights, and for whatever dogmatic aspects of "assimilationism" that did exist as current within it (I think wrongly denying the importance of cultural and religious identity), this in fact failed to discourage large numbers of Jews from joining Marxist parties, and participating in prominent possitions within Marxist parties, in specific struggles against anti-Semitism. I also recall Rosa Luxemburg's positive take on the current struggle against a Jewish distinctiveness: a determination to repudiate all existing racial and religious prejudices in a new, socialist society. So despite the use of some shocking language, if its seen in proper context of what was actually being argued for as a political line and program, against those on the left at the time who were arguing that was in fact quite anti-semitic, Marx's view stands in opposition to that.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nicely explained. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I should respond to your question about trimming the section. Clearly, this is a divisive issue. Some people feel strongly that Marx was anti-Semitic, and others believe not only that Marx was not anti-Semitic but that those who think we was misread his essays criticizing Bauer by reading them literally (since Marx often wrote metaphorically). This is a pretty unbridgable gulf and it has had this consequence: for long periods of time, the article has nothing on anti-Semitism, as the issue is considered trivial. Then someone adds a section on anti-semitism and NPOV leads to a process in which the section grows and grows. Then someone cuts it because they think it is trivial, until someone comes back and creates a new section and the cycle repeats. This cycle has repeated a few times over the past several years.

The most important thing to do in my opinion is to have a spearate article on marx and anti-Semitism that is much more detailed than what we have here, and is a serious article that provides adequate biographical and historical context, as well as debates over how to read Marx, and so on, in which all major views are not only adequately represented but themselves properly contextualized. Then there can be a brief summary in this article with a link to the other article. If this is not done, someone - if not people actively watching this article now, then someone in the next year or two - will renew the cycle by adding more and more stuff. What i am saying is that th eopinions of people actively watching this page are not enough; one (you?) would have to handle it in a way that would anticipate and respond to those people who, without any doubt, will come by this article in a few months or a few years on a mission to publicize Marx's anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that analysis, and the history lesson about this section. I certainly agree with your proposal, and it is exactly what I had in mind. I assume the larger article would be Marx on the Jewish Question? If this proposal is agreeable to all parties we can start working on that article to bring it up to standards, moving over the details there, and then shortening the section here. I would be happy to work on that.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since articles should not become too long I agree that it is often a good idea to create new articles. If there is sufficient place to fill, the reasonable ideas should pervade at last. However I'm not sure if "Karl Marx and Antisemitism" would be the best choice for an article. It seems to be POV to assume that there is a peculiar relation between KM and Antisemitism. At least, there are no special articles about e.g. "Arthur de Gobineau and antisemitism", or "Karl Marx and Communism" yet. Perhaps instead, it would be interesting to have a more general article "Marxism and Antisemitism" which takes into account not only the 19th century, but also later Marxists living in the 20th century, and how, after the Holocaust, Marxists tried to respond on what had happened. --Schwalker (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your concern but I was thinking more to discuss in the various interpretations--and in context--the text "On the Jewish Question." If done properly it can be NPOV and not alleged only one POV, i.e. that it was anti-semitic.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. be that as it may, I think it is legit to have articles on key texts by Marx (like we have many articles on books and poems and plays). The two essays that typically comprisae "On the jewish Question" are generally considered pivotal texts in Marx's corpus of work and I think they would merit their own article, which could include a section on the question of whterh they are anti-Semitic. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of anti-Semitism is a truly minor aspect of his life and work (interestingly, it seems not to have been an issue at all in his lifetime). There are, of course, a handful of noisy complaints (as some editors indicate above) making this accusation, based on out of context and/or wild misinterpretations of the On the Jewish Question review, and generally motivated by a one dimensional anti-communism. It should be remembered that Marx is writing a century before the Holocaust, at a time when Germany was moving towards, not away from, emancipation for Jews. Marx was unquestionably on the side of Jewish people, however hard hitting his treatment of Judaism (and of course religion in general) was. If one is to be, as thr young Marx was, on a quest for the truly radical reformulation of human life, and rooting out all institutional fetters on the true human liberation he (and others in his circle) was reaching for, religion--including Judaism, was going to take a beating. This, to me, is a far cry from anti-Semitism--the attack on Jews qua Jews. It can probably be safely argued that the Jewish question writings have little at all to do with Jews per se. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a chat room where we discuss our own views. The purpose of this page is to improve the article. No matter how well-informed and thoughtful you are, and no matter how firmly you believe you are right, sooner or later someone will add a large and growing section to this article on Marx's anti-Semitism, with many citations, insisting that NPOV prevents us from deleting it, and NOR and V ensures the material can stay. As editors of the encyclopedia we need to come up with a realistic and practical solution to this situation and discussing our own personal views on whether or not he was anti-Semitic is simply irrelevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Marx wrote within the context of a deeply anti-semitic society which actively persecuted Jews. The concept of antisemitism did not exist at the time Marx wrote (the term was invented some 50 years later). Relative to his era his attitude might be defined as pro-Jewish in that it supported emancipation. However by modern standards, his texts are clearly anti-semitic in their description and attitudes toward Jews and, given the high esteem within which his writing is and has been held by subsequent generations, Marx probably contributed to anti-semitism of the left. The only way you can nullify that effect is by making readers aware of it. If you deny or hide it then there is a greater likelihood that ignorant readers will take from the text antisemitic conclusions. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I as a newcomer to this debate suggest that the section be transformed into a separate article - perhaps expanded to include other Marxists (e.g. Marxism and anti-semitism). My personal view is that the language of the essay has to be seen in the context of the times - many Zionist thinkers expressed themselves equally scathingly about the Jews of the Diaspora - but the basic purpose of the article was to support Jewish emancipation. With regard to Marx's robust remarks about various Jews in private correspondence, it should be borne in mind that he was equally robust in his use of other racial categorisations that would today be called racist. Whatever he was, Marx was not what would today be considered "politically correct". But in comparison to many other thinkers of his time, most of whom are not regularly accused of anti-semitism, he was remarkably free of prejudice, particularly in his writings for publication. This is not to say that anybody should be encouraged to adopt similar language today. --Mia-etol (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The material as it currently exists should not be trimmed. I find arguments that Marx's anti-semitic views are not important disturbing. Marx had made a huge impact on large segment of human population with his works. Some authors have said that the greatest enemy of the Jews after Nazi Germany was Soviet Union. As Slrubenstein said, this is not a chat room where we discuss our own views. Claims that Marx was an anti-semite are coming from known experts on anti-semitism. -- Vision Thing -- 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But the question is one of appropriate weight - the amount of space we spend on a subject in the article ought to roughly mirror the proportion of the literature that discusses that subject. Marx and anti-Semitism is comparatively little discussed (as a quick example, niether Britannica nor Encarta see it as worth mentioning in their articles on Marx), but the current section is really quite large, almost as large as the "Criticism" section, for instance - any one of the criticisms mentioned in that section has received more discussion than Marx's anti-Semitism, I would think. Besides which, I think the section is longer than it needs to be to get across the information it contains, and particularly the quotes could be used in a more targeted way (the worst offender here is obviously the long Draper quote at the end). It seems to me that what we need to say in that section is: some scholars of anti-Semitism write that Marx used anti-Semitic language and stereotypes, and influenced anti-Semitic movements; scholars of Marxism generally disagree, arguing either that things what appears to be anti-Semitic in Marx's writing is not anti-Semitic, or that Marx was no more anti-Semitic than the majority of other authors at the time. The section is currently much longer than it needs to be to make this fairly simple point.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Draper article is available on-line in full, so a suitable selection of quotes in a summary could be linked to the original article itself. --Mia-etol (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the material should be trimmed at all - I'm arguing that it should be greatly expanded but in a separate article that is clearly linked from a summary in this article. This would allow this important issue to be aired without totally unbalancing an article about Marx and Marxism so that it in effect becomes primarily an article about Marx and anti-semitism to the effective exclusion of all other issues. In opposition to what you say about about claims that Marx was an anti-semite coming from experts on anti-semitism, there are other experts on anti-semitism who argue the contrary. Also many of the claims come from people who are explicitly anti-Marxist and who are making their accusations of anti-semitism in a clear attempt to discredit all Marx's ideas. It seems that aspirations to NPOV go out the window where Marx is concerned. --Mia-etol (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mia-etol that there could be an expanded article on communism and anti-Semitism. I still think the essays called "On the Jewish Question" are complex and important enough in Marx's ouevre that they merit an article of their own. With two such articles, the section on Marx as an anti-Semite, which is indeed outside of mainstream scholarship, could be trimmed down to something more appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There already is an article for On The Jewish Question. I think the OTJW article is the best place for most of the information on Marx and antisemitism. Mainstream Marx scholarship doesn't give much credence to the idea that Marx was antisemitic, and Jews and Judaism don't seem to have too much importance in Marx's works. Inclusion of so much discussion in the Marx article gives undue weight to the topic of Marx's antisemitism. I think the section should be cut down and most of the material moved to the OTJQ. --Bkwillwm (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have a general consensus to trim the section in this article and move over details to the main article On The Jewish Question----while expanding and improving that main article.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a real consensus. First one should recall that Marx' article Zur Judenfrage is one entity (with two different chapters), which was published in 1844. About this work (like about other literature which is considered relevant by the standard of WP), there already exists the Wikipedia-article On the Jewish Question. The text by Marx is mainly an essay on human and political emancipation and rights, not just about the Jewish people.

But the topic of Marx' alleged anti-semitism and allegations of anti-semitism against Marx is different from the topic of this early essay. Often you can read that texts and private letters from much later decades by Marx are quoted in this context. So I would strongly disagree with the intention I see of some here to treat the topic of Marx' alleged antisemitism in the article On the Jewish Question, since this would overload the article with content which does not belong in there, and would not be the historical and philological correct approach.

I'm happy to see that Mia-etol seems to agree with the proposed creation of an article "Marxism and antisemitism". Or perhaps, in order to address the problem of undue weight of the section in the "Karl Marx"-article from a neutral point of view, a new article titled "Karl Marx' alleged antisemitism" could be created. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think moving the material to OTJQ is adequate. First of all, the topic here is Marx, not Marxism , so "Marxism and antisemitism" is a different topic. Second, Marx rarely wrote on Jews and Judaism. Accusations of Marx's antisemitism always center on OTJQ, and Marx's handful of other comments on Jews/Judaism can be fit into the rest of the discussion in OTJQ.--Bkwillwm (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As a solution to the lack of balance in this article I find this suggestion quite acceptable. There should only be a summary here and the bulk of the material would be more appropriate in OTJQ. It could also be expanded without exacerbating the imbalance here. --Mia-etol (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not sure where do you see consensus. Only thing with which I agree is that this subject merits its own article. If such article is created ("Marxism and antisemitism" seems like appropriate title), then we could perhaps trim section here by removing long quotes. That would reduce section to half of its present size. -- Vision Thing -- 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a step in the right direction. And perhaps if that article developed properly we could further reduce the section - by consensus naturally - to a more appropriate length. Otherwise we will have to lengthen an already very long article to restore the proper relative proportions between the various sections. --Mia-etol (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The section can easily be cut down to size with no impact on quality by removing the only marignally relevant section about Hal Draper and Mosses Hess. Firstly the Draper section claims that Marx was influenced by Hess, however MArx's inluences are not directly relevant (one could equally claim he was affected by Hegel's antisemitism so it wasn't he who was the antisemite). Secondly there is very little evidence that the statement is true. Third it is misleading as it fails to explain that HEss subsequntly recanted his views (having strayed from Judaism), recognizing that they were antisemitic and it was this that led him to write "Rome and Jerusalem". Telaviv1 (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Draper and Hess are only marginally relevant. The full Draper article deals extensively with the context of Marx's article and the contemporary significance and meaning of the various terms at the time the article was written. It is a serious error to interpret historical texts of any type on the basis of the present-day meaning of the terms used. I think this point is very relevant. It should also be borne in mind that many early Zionist writers expressed very negative ideas about the Jews of the Diaspora (including Hess in his later, Zionist period) - indeed this negative attitude to the Jews of the Diaspora was one of the reasons given for the necessity of setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine. However I agree that this part is far too long - that is why I'm arguing that the arguments presented here should be put in a clearly linked separate expanded article with only a relatively brief summary here. Most if not all of the quotations could then be shifted to that article, which could be expanded as contributors see fit without unbalancing this article to make it seem as if anti-semitism was THE major contribution of Marx to the intellectual life of the last century and a half. --Mia-etol (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1, I hope you will reconsider your remarks. Your opinion of the quality of a source - and especially whether it is right or wrong - is utterly irrelevant (as is my opinion or Mia-etol's). Wikipedia articles must comply with various policies. We must include all notable views from verifiable and reliable sources, even (I'd say the spirit of the policy is, "especially") if we think they are wrong. Schwalker's view that "On the Jewish Question" is not about anti-Semitism or the Jews is, like Telaviv1's only his view. Reading the essay(s) i can certainly see why a reader would think they are about Jews and anti-Semitism. But again this takes is in the wrong direction because it does not matter what Schwalker or I think the essays are about. It is verifiable sources of notable views that count. I would add one thing, however, to this discussion: I think this and linked articles should give more weight to people who are acknowledged experts on Marx and Marxism. This would include people who have edited editions of Marx's work and who have written biographies of marx, as well as books and articles on Marxism. Other views of course can be included if they are notable, but I am calling attention to what I would consider the most notable and reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a problem with my incomplete English: When I've written: "not just about the Jewish people", I've meant that the topic of the essay as a whole is human/political rights/emancipation, which is different from "the Jews". This is not my opinion but an (almost standard) view on the essay, shared by many interpretations. I can't see were I would have claimed that ""On the Jewish Question" is not about anti-Semitism or the Jews". On the contrary, in my opinion both topics, the Jews and anti-Semitism are important elements of the essay. Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I miscommunicated as well. My point was not so much about what you said as such - rather, that we need to be clear not only to bracket our own views but actively to bring up and bring in verifiable sources for notable views. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of fact--Hess was, I believe, a strong influence on the young Marx (i.e., the relevant Marx who wrote On the Jewish question and the follow up sections in the Holy Family circa 1843-4). And while hegel's antisemitism may have influenced Marx, Marx seems to be at least equally influenced by Hegel's support for Jewish rights within the ideal Prussian state. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you. But without verifiable and reliable sources, your information cannot go into any article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Several authors and editors of Marx's works including David McLellan point out that Hess introduced both Engels and then Marx to communism in this period. This would seem to me to be a fairly major influence. I'll gather some of the references (in both English and German) and present them here in the next few days. --Mia-etol (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bkwillkm, you write: "Accusations of Marx's antisemitism always center on OTJQ". I can't see this. If we look at the sources used in the current chapter of this WP-article, among those who refer to texts and letters written after OtJQ are:

• J.Jacobs' article on Marx in Antisemitism. A historical encyclopedia ...
• J. Muravchik refers to an alleged text by Marx, which at closer inspection has turned out as the misrepresentation of an article from 1849.
• L. Boim, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Boim himself referring to
• E. Silberner who wrote in the 1940s about Marx
• B. Lewis according to the WP-article
• H. Maccoby on p.66 of his book

So almost each of these accusers also refers to later texts and letters by Marx, which were not related to OtJQ when they were written. That is why in my view, it is evident that the essay and the accusations of Marx's antisemitism are two distinct topics. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC) corrected, --Schwalker (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a fair nuumber of reliable sources rebutting the notion of Marx' writings were not motivated by antisemitism (including those that acknowledge his use of some of the antisemitic slurs of his day). Discussions of Marx and antisemitism almost always center on OtJQ. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, what does "center on" mean? The last half of an hour, I've written the list above of sources which don't merely rely on OtJQ, but also on later texts of Marx. To me that means that these sources don't "center" on OtJQ, but on the later texts, too ?! Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good list, Schwalker, but if you consult them, you will see that most focus (center) on OTJQ as the main source for claims about Marx' alleged antisemitism, with some minor discussion of later private writings. And Lewis' claim about "later" is really about a remark of Engels. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, above I asked you for sources. Now you reply that souces exist, but refuse to nameor provide the citations. You are being evasive and this is unconstructive. Provide us with the sources that support your cloams, or don't, it is as simple as that. If you cannor provide reliable and verifiable sources, it doesn't matter what you believe. And it doesn't matter that you believe sources exist. Please provide them. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of sources in the On the Jewish Question article already; also David Riazanov's biography of Marx and Engels discusses Hess' influence. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Boodles, I am glad to see we are amassing a good list of sources. i have one observation. It is evident that some sources will be experts on Marx and Marxism, and others will be experts on anti-Semitism. i think we need to be careful about how we use these sources. Established experts on marx have more authority about what marx's writings mean than people who are not experts on Marx. Experts on anti-Semitism can explain what anti-Semitism is. If any make claims that Marx was an anti-Semite, we need to be more careful about assessing their reliability. If a source can document that something Marx wrote was an explicit an ddirect influence on an anti-Semitic action, that is one thing - very reliable. If a source just says "I find this anti-Semitic," I consider this much less reliable. Good historians know that to interpret historical documents (what they mean, let alone the intention of the author) you need to know a LOT about the context. My point is simple: scholars, like anyone else, can make two kinds of comments, well-informed and uninformed. If an MD gives a detailed examination of a patient and provides a diagnosis, that has lots of authority. If I tell my MD that I have a friend who compains about x and the doctor suggests a diagnosis, that has less authority. If the MD is a specialist in oncology and diagnoses cancer, that diagnosis has a lot of authority; if the MD is an othopedic surgeon and gives a diagnosis of cancer, it has less authority. I am not rejecting any sources out of hand, just saying that we need to put the sources themselves in context, assess them, and use them carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are not supported by logic or Wiki policy. Your argument is like saying that your family doctor has bigger authority in determining whether you have cancer or not because he knows you better. That's completely bogus. Specialists on cancer are true authority there. Your family doctor can know you and study you your whole life but that doesn't enable him to say "Yes, you have cancer" or "No, you don't have it." On the other hand, specialists on cancer (anti-semitism) have much bigger authority on that issue. Experts on anti-semitism shouldn't be cited for their opinion on class struggle or Marx's LTV, but they definitely should be cited on question whether Marx was anti-semite or not. They are biggest authorities on that issue, because that have greatest understanding on what anti-semitism is and what are its symptoms. -- Vision Thing -- 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And what is your opinion of Marxist specialists on questions of racism and anti-semitism? Are they beyond the pale because they are Marxists? Or are only Zionists allowed to be specialists on anti-semitism? --Mia-etol (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<--Obviously we have to use judgment in sorting through sources, and allow for the complexities of history (the diallectic, as it were :)). It of course becomes complicated when there are contradictory elements. Marx is associated with a movement (communism) that takes pride in it's stand and deeds and indeed courageous sacrifices against anti-Semitism, and he is accused of antisemitism. Thomas Jefferson is considered father of an American democracy seen by billions throughout history as a beacon of light against oppression, and he (and countless other "Founding Fathers") stand accused of the most vile racist oppression--the holding of chattel slaves. Nothing is one dimensional. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Historians who are experts on Jeffesron are addressing the racism question and they do so in a well-informed way, accounting for the complexities of many things Jefferson said and did, in their historical context. Many people who accuse Jefferson of being a racist - and many people who insist he was not a racist - are equally wrong because they just do not know enough about the things he did and said and the context in which he spoke and acted. The most authoritative sources on what jefferson meant by ANYTHING he said are historians who specialize in Jefferson and US colonial history - not experts on "racism" in general. The same is true for Marx. Vision Thing is dead wrong and of course she misinterpreted my analogy. The point is not that my "family dcotor" (a term I never used) happens to "know me" better. My point is that a doctor needs to do a thorough examination of me before making a meaningful diagnosis. For someone to read a few letters by marx and call him an anti-Semite is like a doctor taking my temperature and telling me I have bruselosis. A good doctor will take a history as well as a more complete record of symptoms and signs. For anyone to interpret any writing of Marx accurately, they need to know the context - the larger corpus of Marx's writing, Marx's personal history, the social context in which he wrote (|Europe in the 1840s and 1850s) and the intellectual context in which he wrote (e.g. Hegel, Proudhon, Smith, Ricardo, Feurbach). This is not marxist propaganda, it is basic standards of professional historiography. The same criteria apply to interpreting the Bible or the Declaration of Independence. Vision Thing simply seems not to respect academic historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is disrespectful to experts, that is you Slrubenstein. On what grounds do you claim that experts on anti-semitism reached their conclusion on Marx's anti-semitism by reading "a few letters by marx" while not aware of the social context? Your reasoning is completely baseless. You are trying to give less importance to scholars who don't accommodate your personal point of view. You are not better in judging quality of sources on Marx's anti-semitism than you are in judging what my sex is. -- Vision Thing -- 18:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All my comment asserts is that one must be an expert on marx to make authoritative claims about the meaning of Marx's work. It is obvious that if an expert on anti-Semitism is also an expert on Marx, my doubts do not apply to that person. They apply only to those who lack such expertise. As for my personal point of view, it is only to respect the standards of professional historians. I never expressed any view about the content of what an expert on Marx might have to say about Marx's views about Jews. I do not care whether an expert on marx argues that marx was and anti-Semite or was not an anti-Semite and I defy you to provide any quote of anything I said that suggests the contrary. If you can demonstrate to me that a particular source is indeed an expert on Marx, his life, his work, the historial and social context in which he lived and wrote, of course I will accept that source as reliable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will do that after you demonstrate that a particular expert on Marx is also an expert on history of anti-semitism, its symptoms and the social and intellectual context in which it develops.

Your comment asserts that one must be an expert on Marx to make authoritative claims about the meaning of Marx's work, but following same logic one also must be an expert on anti-semitism to make authoritative claims on someone's anti-semitism. Source must be expert on B to make authoritative claims about B. -- Vision Thing -- 11:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the section on Marx' antisemitism will have to remain "too long" simply because the subject is too controversial to enable a short summary. We could add a provisor saying that none of his other important essays are considered to contain antisemitic contents. The Thomas Jefferson article also contains a long section on slavery including the line "Some find it baffling that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves yet was outspoken in saying that slavery was immoral and it should be abolished". We could say that 'some find it baffling that Marx, himself of Jewish origin and a supporter of Jewish emancipation could have written an article making abusive comments about Jews...' Telaviv1 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why it has to be here. There is already a separate article about this text, where the discussion here is hardly reflected at all. Would it not be more appropriate to shift the discussion to that article, while including a statement like the one you have just suggested here ans adding something like "A full discussion of this issue can be found in the article ..."? -Mia-etol (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mia-etol. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be fine as long as we keep the Alleged Antisemitism section as a seperate section. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Section has to be here because it is on Marx's anti-semitism in general and not just on his anti-semitism in OTJQ. Part of the section content would be off-topic there and it is on-topic here. -- Vision Thing -- 11:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Mia-etol, Slrubenstein, et al. It seems consensus is against Vision Thing, on this question. I think we can go ahead and make the appropriate changes, and if he dissents, still, he should not edit war but keep further impute through the conflict resolution methods, Rfc, etc. Discussion on the page has been good and points to trimming this section as described above (no need to repeat the arguments).Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to remember that although the issue (Marx' purported antisemitsm) is controversial, and will probably be so for a very long time and never be "resolved," its not a terribly large issue. It's not as if major works are devoted to it; it's largely discussed in passing, and often as part of a general larger polemic. The handful of works that discuss the issue pretty much all follow the same line of thought (both pro and con) without much variation. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, I would first like for your arbcom case to be over before starting dispute resolution process with you. It seems to me that only consensus we have reached is about moving Draper's quote to OTJQ. -- Vision Thing -- 09:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense - the question of marx's anti-Semitism is relatively trivial, whereas OTJQ is one of the most important of his early essays. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just some it all up in three sentences with representative refs and do away with the whole unsightly quote farm altogether, per WP:UNDUE. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a very valid point. Perhaps 3 sentences is a little bit short - but in general, the argument could be taken up in more detail in an ancillary article, e.g. the one specifically on the text OTJQ. --Mia-etol (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In this section the article states that Marx's supposed anti-semetic views influenced the Nazi party. With my small knowledge of 20th century history and politics I thought that the National Socialist party was vehomently opposed to communism and with such a negative attitude would not use or cite use of the most iconic communist.--88.108.122.16 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

for some reason i cannot revert the latest vandalism by cowmanlightsaber. Please someone else try. --maxrspct ping me 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Their 6 cummulative edits are self-annuling and have no effect on the article. --Schwalker (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I see now.. what a palava. --maxrspct ping me 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

on chomksy

An editor removed Chomsky as having been influenced by Marx? All modern socialists are influenced by Marx. And while its true that Bakunin is a more precise and distinct influence, keep in mind that Bakunin was himself influenced by Marx as well, in particular Marx's economic analysis, which he worked on translating. In short Chomsky should probably be returned, although its not a big deal. The influence section could get very large...Giovanni33 (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked out Chomsky's views after seeing the deletion, and have come to the conclusion that the deletion is correct. On more than one occasion Chomsky has explicitly rejected Marxism, describing it as a religion. --Mia-etol (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, Chomsky would hold that view. Chomsky is not a Marxist. However, this does not mean his brand of libertarian socialism is not heavily influenced by Marx. It is. So the real question is one of influence. But, its not a big deal, and if Chomsky specifically wants to distance himself from Marx to distinguish his ideology from Marxism, then that is fine with me.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I looked up the book, The Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky by Alison Edgley; Routledge, 2000. This discusses Chomsky's thought, and it has references to Marx on 32 different pages (200 page book). As expected, it discusses the influences, so close that is serves as means to compare and contrast the differences, which often are only a matter of emphasis (a lot of it regarding the effect of the economy on the state). To quote a passage, "It has been established that there is a discernible difference between Marx and Chomsky in terms of the emphasis placed on the role of the state in capitalist society, to the extent that Chomsky always refers to 'state capitalism', rather than simply capitalism. We see by this emphasis that Chomsky is keen to highlight the role of agency in social and political affairs, but in a way which recognises the influence of non-reified structural characteristics of society. The question that may now be raised is what effect does this shift of emphasis have on state theory, which has of course been massively influenced by Marx's nascent ideas? In other words, the question is whether Chomsky's observations and claims offer anything distinctive to debates on state theory and in so doing thereby constitute a theory of the state." This is also common in the book, and I quote, "Despite the obvious closeness of Chomsky's analysis to Marx's, there is a distinct shift of emphasis." So while Chomsky would never call himself a Marxist, but be highly critical, I doubt that even he would deny crediting significant influence of Marx.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to make a big issue of it, but obviously the editor who removed Chomsky from the list of those influenced by Marx, felt it was sufficiently important to make the deletion. --Mia-etol (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On a similar topic, can someone write in that Marx was influenced by Edmund Burke. Burke's grasp of the idea that cultural values tend to preserve themselves (hence his being considered a classic conservative) and especially that revolutions are tools that maintain the values of a society very much impacted Marx's economic & social analysis, his insistence that the revolution be educated, and ultimately one of the underlying reasons he wrote the Manifesto with Engels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafter88 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no evidence that Max or Engels had read Burke before writing the Manifesto. It would therefore be inaccurate tpo claim that they were influenced by him except in the vague sense that you could claim that everybody in a particular field is influenced by everybody who came before in that field. --Mia-etol (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Marx and antisemitism

I propose that the section 'Marx and antisemitism' is moved to a subsection under 'Criticisms'. It seems completely out-of-place in section 3 between 'Marx's thought' and 'Influences on Marx's thought'. Whether or not On the Jewish Question contains antisemitic epithets is not a central aspect of his life. Karpouzi (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Antisemitism doesn't seem to be an important part of Marx's thought at all, and giving it significant treatment with in this article gives the subject undue weight. Mainstream scholars give little attention to Marx and antisemitism and don't consider it a central part of his thought. The material should be moved to another article--I'd favor On The Jewish Question.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't actually see much difference between these two positions - only in the proposed solutions to the question. --Mia-etol (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• While devoting an entire section with 14 paragraphs to the supposed anti-semitism of Marx (who of course, was Jewish himself, just to add to the ridiculousness of all of this), whilst devoting only 1 paragraph to his work with the First International, might seem highly one-sided, you must of course realize that this is, after all, Wikipedia. Ruy Lopez (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean by that. I always assumed that Wikipedia aspired to be an encyclopaedia, not a platform for a particular set of opinions about what is or isn't important. --Mia-etol (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag Removal

I removed the flags because of WP:FLAGBIO:

Not for use in locations of birth and death The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is forbidden, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality. For example, actor Bruce Willis was born on a U.S. military base in Germany, so putting a German flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was a German citizen. Similarly, many people die on foreign soil due to war, vacation accidents, etc. without any effect on their actual citizenship or nationality.

— (WP:Flags)

--RasNehemia (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pub crawls

Karl Marx used to go on pub crawls with his friends and discuss philosophy. I find that reassuring.

Influenced Section

The "influenced" section should be reorganized. Placing Mugabe there is just simple POV and slandering. Marx has nothing to do with this monster, there are a few else, for example Kim Il-Sung whom I would also dispute. How is this going to end? By adding Pol Pot and Hitler? After all he was a "Socialist".--RasNehemia (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember the first people Mugabe had killed once he got into power were the Marxists who had helped him get there in the first place. Same for Stalin, Hitler, and most other proclaimed "socialists".JohnyGoodman (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

factual error in first paragraph

the statement

His approach is indicated by the opening line of the The Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”

can be made correct by saying something like:

His approach is indicated by an early line of ...

The opening line of the Communist Manifesto actually says:

A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism.

see any printed text, or the wikepedia article on the Communist Manifesto

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

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Skaamjm (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

207.118.80.246 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)And another factual error: "While Marx was a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death." Marx was not *at all* obscure during his own lifetime; he was a prominent and public personality--even a dominant one--in that intellectual movement that most captured the imaginations of artists and intellectuals of his era alike."

On "religion is the opiate of the people".

Did Karl Marx ever call for the abolition of religion? 71.253.97.230 (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. His analysis of religion was much more complex than this partial quote from a much longer and more nuanced passage. --Mia-etol (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lousy arithmetic

The main article and the article on criticism do not mention Marx's attempts at arithmetic. When adding fractions like 1/9 + 1/99, he often got the sum wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.224.188 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

political society

Helping hands needed! AfD was put on political society article. Marx exploits the term in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right as important part of his argument. --discourseur 10:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Last words

Go on, get out - last words are for fools who haven't said enough. To his housekeeper, who urged him to tell her his last words so she could write them down for posterity. ~~ Karl Marx, revolutionary, d. 1883

Shouldn't these be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.183.201 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that the housekeeper who is buries in his grave and who had a son by him?

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Convert to Christianity

Does the category 'Converts from Judaism to Christianity' suit here? His father made an official transition from the one community to the other, but what does this say about Karl's choices? He saw Judaism as the explanation for the supposed corruption in Christianity. That does in no way implicate conversion to Christianity, rather from 'religion' to atheism. Nethency (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Was his works ever copyrighted?

Was all his works ever copyrighted?

Ожиданиесчастья (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Marx and anti-semitism edits

So I (both JG and 86.27.97.28) decided to cut down the Marx anti-semitism section from 1000 to 200 words (the Philosophy section in comparison is 1000 words). My reasons for doing this were as follows:

1. The debate is catered for in the "On the Jewish Question" page in great detail.

2. The section is in clear violation of WP:UNDUE. That rule states that the number of words dedicated to each topic in each page should be relevant to their importance in understanding of the subject. Minor aspects of the person and minority views should receive a minor section (i.e no flat earth section in the "Earth" page).

In elaboration of 2, note that the articles on J.F Fries (an open near-genocidal anti-semite), while much shorter overall than the Marx article, sums up his anti-semitism in a sentence. The long article on Schopenhauer, also an anti-semite, contains a sentence and a quote. I do not suggest it is in the interests of "fairness" to expand the sections in those philosopher's articles, because their anti-semitism was a very minor part of their philosophy. Now in Marx's case perhaps a slightly longer section is deserved, solely because there is controversy (even though his supposed anti-semitism plays no noticeable part in his philosophy). I believe that the edits I made managed quite succinctly to show that there exists a controversy, that it has in no way been resolved, and that the article on "On the Jewish Question" would provide more information. Since my edits, there has been a reversion to a 600 word section, which at 2/3s the length of the philosophy section is still much too long. I will address those who made the edits in turn.

Slrubenstein - You complained that the section as I had edited it made it seem as if Marx was simply an anti-semite. I do not think this to be the case at all. I think the counter-argument by Wheen was fairly good at explaining how the actual context and content of "On the Jewish Question" contradicts the claims that Marx was an anti-semite. I also think that the argument for Marx's anti-semitism was clearly indicated to be a minority view, as the word "some commentators" suggests. "According to them" and "In their view" also clearly indicated that this was not in any way a decided truth.

Mia-Etol - I understand that Draper is an important scholar on Marx, but I do not think that makes his view a necessary addition to the article. In my experience many "controversy" or "criticisms" sections quickly turn into an arms-race, where criticism, counter-criticism, counter-counter-criticism and so on are added until it gets ridiculous - and the current and pre-my-edit section on anti-semitism was at that stage of ridiculousness. Everybody wants to get every point ever made into the section, and it is wholly unnecessary. The best thing to do is reduce the section so that it shows the fact that their are different views, and if possible link to a page that addresses the criticism or controversy in more detail, in this case the "On the Jewish Question" page.

Visionthing - I have raised some of my points in the section higher up on the page, and some of them here and later in this post. To sum them up in brief - the section is in clear violation of WP:UNDUE and the fact that some proclaimed authority on anti-semitism in Tel Aviv thinks Marx was an anti-semite does not change that in the slightest. This section must be made a lot shorter to cease being in violation of that rule.

It is in my opinion that perhaps even 200 words is too much and there shouldn't be a section. It might be better to bring it up in the biography, and then make sure there is a link to the "On the Jewish Question" article. I perhaps cynically anticipate a complaint that I am "suppressing free speech or alternative views on Marx" for ideological reasons. This is not the case. Partly because I have made sure to maintain both views, but more importantly because Wikipedia is not about free speech or alternative views. It is about presenting truth and facts - these are not democratic. Some of these truth and facts are in dispute, and it is entirely acceptable to present that there is a certain controversy over a certain issue. But, as in accordance with WP:UNDUE, the section on the controversy must be relevant to the significance of the controversy both in itself (again, try and see the "Flat Earth" section on the "Earth" page) and in its relation to the subject of the page itself. Karl Marx was possibly an anti-semitic philosopher, but he did little if anything in his life that was anti-semitic and his philosophy and economics has precisely nothing to do with Judaism and so the section on his "anti-semitism" should be extremely short. In comparism, while it is harder to judge because it is addressed in various locations on the page, the analysis of Hitler's anti-semitism is not that much greater, a man who was blatantly anti-semitic for much of his life, and it defines his philosophy and character. This is a situation which clearly cannot do. JohnyGoodman (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am all for cuts as long as NPOV is preserved. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I explained, I do not think there was anything POV with the edits I had made. Surely you would be fine with a reversion to my edit? If not, please make the reductions yourself because somebody has to.

Also, I think it is worth mentioning that I do not hope for another debate here about whether Marx was an anti-semite or not - that has been done to death on this page. Whether Marx was an anti-semite or not is not what I am concerned with - whether or not it is relatively important is. To the best of my knowledge, it is not particularly important in scholarship of Marx, nor is it important to an understanding of Marx. Even if it was the case that Marx was the most pure of anti-semites, this would have little relevance. Does anti-Semitism play an important part in his economics? No. Does it play an important part in his philosophy? No. Did it play a major part in his life? No. So why should it play an important part in an encyclopedia's page on Marx? There is no reason. To be frank (and this is my opinion, please don't start a debate on this) it seems to me that the possibility of Marx's anti-Semitism is only important to conservative author who want a reason to smear him. JohnyGoodman (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work on reworking the section down to a sensible size, JohnyGoodman. The one thing I did restore from the earlier version is the references that support the second and third sentences in the first paragraph; in your version, these sentences were unsourced. I think there's some room to re-work the second paragraph, to make some more general claims about the general view of OTJQ among Marx scholars, rather than making it look like it is just McLellan and Wheen who question the interpretation of the text as anti-semitic; perhaps this could involve restoring the reference to Draper. I'll try and work on that when I get some time.VoluntarySlave (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge that the reliance on Wheen and McLellan is a problem and probably the source of SIlrubenstein's grievances. However, I would suggest adding something like "many scholars have disputed this" to the start of the second paragraph and referencing Draper amongst others.JohnyGoodman (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

JG, can you cut, but keep the Rose POV? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the section was cut way too much. However, in spirit of compromise I'm willing to accept modified version of it. Basically I added two sort sentences, and a quote from Marx. -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any use in an encyclopaedia for a sentence starting

"Some commentators, like X, Y and Z, have maintained that [...]",

since it does not tell who claims what, who first, and how they differ. Also, a sentence

"Following excerpt from On The Jewish Question is often quoted [...]"

is original research, since it is unsourced and does not answer who is using the quote. --Schwalker (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• They all clam what the rest of the sentence says. For us to explain what each of them specifically claims would require longer section. Just saying "some commentators" would be weasel wording.

• Edward Flannery on p. 168 while describing Marx as a "caustic antisemite" says: "The following passage is typical:" and then quotes passage in question. Same passage is quoted in the same context by Hyam Maccoby in Antisemitism and Modernity on p. 65, Joshua Muravchik in Heaven on Earth on p. 66, Marvin Perry and Frederick M. Schweitzer in Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present on p. 154, Arieh Stav in Israeli Anti-Semitism on p. 171, and by Leon Boim in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights vol. 8 on p. 245. -- Vision Thing -- 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This will not do Vision_Thing. The compromise was keeping the anti-semitism section at all - and it is a compromise between seemingly everybody and you. As I have explained it has pretty much no relevance, it is very unimportant. I do not think even those who accuse Marx of anti-semitism think it has any relevance to his actual philosophy, economics or life. Because of this it is in violation of WP:UNDUE. It's going to work like this, you guys are going to reduce that section to less than 200 words, because apparently my edits aren't good enough. It does not matter what Rose's POV is, and so on. If people want to find about it then they clearly have the opportunity to view the OTJQ article, or if not use google or buy a book or something. Wikipedia, as I stated, is not about catering to everybody's views. It is about presenting a factual and representative description of a person. We can present a factual and representative description of the anti-semitism controversy in much less than 200 words (which at 20% of the philosophy section is still too much). I, and I am confident everyone with one exception is willing to make edits to bring it down to under 200 words, or merge it into the criticism or philosophy section. So therefore we should do it. JohnyGoodman (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, saying some commentators is not weasel wording, because we provide references. Provide three or four references, but no actual text (which was what we had a couple of edits ago) and it is entirely acceptable. If people want to know more, then they can consult those references.JohnyGoodman (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JohnyGoodman - my only quibble was I think it is worth keeping Rose's view. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This section had 1.075 words for months. Now it has 316. More then enough was done on reduction of it. As for naming few specific people who think that Marx is an anti-Semite, I simply can't see what is wrong with such practice. -- Vision Thing -- 08:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vision Thing on this point that the names of the scholars should be given.

What does it mean that person X "accuses" Karl Marx of antisemitism? Do they, individually or as a group, intend to sue him at a court? (I doubt that.) Or do they in their books represent, and affirm arguments which other people had uttered before? I think in this case, it would be our task to find out who was first to publish these arguments in an academic context, and mention her or him in the article.

I think Edmund Silberner's paper 'Was Marx an antisemite?', Historica Judaica, 11 (1), 1949, pp. 3-52 (information from Julius Carlebach: Karl Marx and the radical critique of Judaism (1978), p. 447) was an early example, since most modern texts about the essay refer back to Silberner. If a later relevant scholar of Marx' antisemitism has added a very important viewpoint, we can "attribute" the scholar's argument to them, according to the WP:NPOV policy. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Then reduce to less than 200 words and after "some scholars" add "(e.g x, y and z)". I still think reductions are important as as it stands I think there is a need to add Rose's POV, and then there might be a need to add x's POV and y's POV and so on until we're back where we started.

Schwalker, you don't seem to understand the point. The section must be in accordance with WP:UNDUE, so it must be very short as it is very insignificant - that is not disputed. Now lots of people have lots of different views and different insights. We must sum those up and/or generalize them in as short a space as possible. For that reason we cannot have long quotes or analysis in any detail. If people want a more comprehensive analysis of the topic, then there's OTJQ, google.com and book stores. JohnyGoodman (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem of anachronims here: the concept of Antisemitism#Etymology_and_usage did not exist when Marx wrote, the accusation is a judgement of later generations. I suggest you also read the definitions of antisemitism.Telaviv1 (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Draper reference on Marx's "anti-semitism"

I feel that removing the Draper reference makes the section unbalanced - none of the authorities cited in Marx's "defence" is a Marxist. McLellan is a Marx scholar, but a non-Marxist. Francis Wheen has written a very entertaining biography, but he's actually a journalist, not a Marx scholar - and he is also not a Marxist. Draper on the other hand wrote a major study of Marx and in the article referred to he goes in depth into the contemporary debates that were the background to Marx's article. At the very least Draper's article ought to be referred to as it is the major defence of Marx's position in English from within his "system", so to speak - that is my only point. --Mia-etol (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the Draper reference was not really a defence of Marx, merely an explanation of the origins of the antisemtisim in OJQ. It implied that Marx had indeed made antisemitic statements but tried to "pin the blame" elsewhere. It was also excessively long. Telaviv1 (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be added back in because it makes the section too long. See my above posts for why this section needs to be under 200 words and why there is no need to present all the various views of the various scholars. I think it's time somebody made further cuts btw. JohnyGoodman (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out above none of the "defenders" quoted is a Marxist. Why is even a mere reference to Draper so unacceptable? Admittedly the original lengthy quotes were too long, but now the arguments of one of the premiere Marxist scholars of Marx who has dealt with the question are totally ignored. I'm not asking for even a quote. A mere reference such as "See also Draper (1977)" after the McLellan reference with a link to the article, which is available online - unlike the other articles and books - would be sufficient (this is 4 words - about 20 characters) --Mia-etol (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to Marx's "anti-semitism"

I suggest that the following sentence at the end of the section be removed. It is confusing and does not contribute to the point being made, that Marx was actually defending the Jews. That point is clearer without the addition.

According to McLellan, Marx used the word Judentum colloquially, as commerce, arguing that Germans suffer, and must be emancipated from, capitalism, concluding that the essay's second half should be read as an extended pun at Bauer’s expense.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not contribute to the point that Marx was defending the Jews. That is because McClellan does not believe that Marx was defending the Jews. McLellan is providing a different interpretation of the essays. And McLellan's views are notable and should be included. Perhaps part of the problem is that an anonymous user went through the article claiming to clean it up, and in the process just combined different views and made a mess. I am reverting. I agree that the article could be pruned, but it needs to be pruned by someone who knows Marx really well and who knows English really well. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

what I just did

Okay, I have been meaning to do this for some time. Several days ago an anonymous user made a host of changes to the article, claiming to be pruning excess words. I think that user acted in good faith because the article is long and at some points hard to follow, an understandable result of the accretion of changes over time. But I think in many cases the anonymous user's edits read poorly or mangled content. Those edits finally motivated me to go over the article with an eye towards a general revision primarily on grounds of style. So I have just gone through it, and have tried to do my own pruning and rearranging. I know that since the anon. user's activities others have made serious edits and I tried to go back to make sure I didn't throw out any baby with the bath-water. I have worked on this article on and off for a long time and I feel pretty good about all the changes I made, and I have not deleted any major content or added anything new. I know many of you are also knowledgable and have an investment in the article and ask only that you too take this time to consider the article as a whole, and accept that I was acting in good faith.

There is one place where I am still not satisfied - the section on "Marx in Paris and Brussels." This has a lot of important and much interesting content. But it meanders. I think it can be edited, to cut some, and more importantly to reorganize it so it flows better. I did a little work on it but frankly am stumped. I do not recommend anyone rush into it - we risk ending up with a revision that is even worse despite good intentions. But I hope a few of you will read over it a few times, mull it over, and try to fix it. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Was Marx German?

As a political identity, this is anachronistic - he was Prussian. But even as a national identity, did he identify himself as a German? Maybe, I don't know. But I wouldn't use Encarta as a source - they are just another on-line encyclopedia, and it just begs the question, what was their source? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Marx regarded himself as a "German". Or what else is on offer for his "national identity"? Italian? Chinese? Sioux? Phrases like "wir Deutsche" ("we Germans") are nothing so exceptional within his work (e. g.: http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me01/me01_378.htm ); it is clear that the national-cultural background and tradition where he saw his roots and his identity was a German one. Anyway, German as a "political identity" is NOT an "anachronism" for the first half of the 19th century. When Marx was born, in 1818, the German states were organised in a POLITICAL system with the name "German Confederation", and the question of the POLITICAL (re-)organisation of Germany was exactly THE primary question the nation dealed with in those decades. In THAT political discussion and political process, the Bismarckian founding of the new "kleindeutsch" nation-state German Empire in 1871 was an ENDmark. Moreover, "German" as a "political identity" is certainly also not "anachronistic" for earlier centuries. Prof. Georg Schmidt for instance, an expert for the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, gives in his latest synthesis "Geschichte des Alten Reiches" loads of examples how the "Old Empire" was regarded and conceptualised already, often in a quite pronounced manner, as a "German" political entity or even "state" ("Teutscher Reichs-Staat") by its intellectual and political elites in the time of its being. In the text of his abdication of 1806, the last emperor Francis II simply speaks of the "German Empire" whose crown he lays down. Hardly an academic expert for the older Empire denies that it had a strong and present German national component of political relevance. Statements of the sort like "there was no Germany before 1871", "there was no German nation before 1871" etc., truly "anachronistic" themselves, one usually hears only from people who are quite ignorant about the historical sources.

Hey, I was just asking for a source - a secondary one is generally better than a primary one. By the way, I do not understand your question about Sioux etc. Just because nations exist does not mean that all people identify themselves with a given nation; to think this is naive and mistaken. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to correct this whole issue of Marx's ethnicity by replacing "Russian-Russian Orthodox" with "German-Jewish", but then I checked the Encarta reference and realized it only said he was German, so I reverted it, because I'm too lazy/clumsy to find another reference. The question is actually best answered by saying that Karl Marx was descended from Jews living in Germany who had recently converted to Lutheran Christianity, but that Karl himself became an atheist at an early age. "German" is the English designation for inhabitants of that region, even though at the time it was known as being part of the Prussian Empire. Shanoman (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Many Jews are atheists, the issue is nationality, not religiosity ... I know that marx did not deny any connection to the Jewish community, but i do not know if he actively identified himself as being of the Jewish nation. Above i asked whether Marx identified himself as a German and an anonymous editor responded, a bit hysterically, but correctly, that Marx did use the phrase "We germans" several times in his published writings, which is enough for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines on biographies encourage the opening paragraph to avoid emphasizing incidental ethnicity and to treat nationality "in the normal case" in terms of "the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable". So we can say that Marx, born a citizen of the Kingdom of Prussia, became a stateless exile from his native Rhineland. "German" gives the wrong idea in terms of citizenship. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Date format?

I changed the date format to the international standard (day-month-year), but another user has reverted it to the US standard (month-day-year). As far as I know Marx was not American but European. Can we agree here that this article should use the date standard used in the countries where he lived, which is day-month-year? --John (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. Although Karl Marx lived in Europe, he is not important just within a European context - this is not like an article on the Franco-Prussian War, or the Holy Roman Empire, or William the Conqueror, where I would have no principled objections to using the English style. Be that as it may, WP:MOS is a guideline, not a policy. There is nothing that requires us to comply with anything in the MOS. But it does give a few useful hints.

1. The most important one is consistency: "An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article. Often, one way of presenting information may be as good as another, but consistency promotes clarity and cohesion in Wikipedia articles." The dates in this article were consistent. Therefore, I saw no problem and no cause to change them.
2. Another is priority: "When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." This was first done September 8, 2002 [5]; it was this original format to which I reverted.

Finally, I reverted John because he made a change to the format of the article with no discussion. The Manual of style does not prefer one dating system over another. It does state, "If the Manual of Style does not specify a preferred usage, discuss your issues on the talk page of this article." There are many people who have made and continue to make major contributions to this article and if we wish to change the style of dates from that which was originally used, and has been used consistently for the past six years, I say, "let's discuss it."

According to the MOS:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles such as 14 February or February 14 is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.

I do not think that the fact that Marx lived in Europe is sufficiently "substantial" a reason to change something we have consistently practiced for six years; I think Marx's importance transcends the difference between two styles of representing dates. Moreover, I think the majority of English-speaking readers of this article are quite comfortable with the current system. But if other editors who have worked on the article consider this a sufficiently substantial reason to make this change, well, I'd love to hear why. If a consensus to change emerges out of this discussion, I certainly won't oppose it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Marx and racism edits

I have put a small section on Marx's racism into this Wikipedia page supported by two secondary sources and it has been twice removed. Once it was removed on the grounds that it was undue weight to an issue. This is false as it is a small section. Further, Karl Marx's notability is his intellectual work, so it is important to know this to fully understand him (where it might be less important to know about the person who discovered an element for example). Someone analysing Karl Marx's positions on colonialism etc. would find this information very useful, and the section could hardly be much smaller. So I argue it is not undue weight in terms of the large size of the article and the small size of the addition.

The second time it was removed the following reason was given: "To mention something supported by only one, rather non-notable, book (out of the thousands written on Marx) is indeed undue weight"

First, there is an important distinction to make between Karl Marx and Marxism. There are not thousands of books written on Karl Marx I doubt there are even a hundred, while there are innumerable items written on Marxism. We are talking about the individual Karl Marx and his historical situation, not Marxism. Indeed, I would probably object to these references being put into the Marxism page without notable sources linking racism to Marxism. So trying to to blur the issues and adding a rhetorical "thousands" to diminish the importance of the book does not work. The book is a published secondary source. Further, it is notable in that it is cited by a number of scholars, three times in recent years: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=18154573555295079097 Google scholar often doesn't give a complete list of citations so there are no doubt more.

So the small section being added is a fact supported by notable sources about the person Karl Marx. It is needed to understand the person Karl Marx (and his time) and is not about Marxism (the book is titled "Karl Marx, racist" not "Marxist Racism"). I hope this has clarified the issues here and people will see how this is a good contribution to our understand of the life of Karl Marx and the comments of his professional biographers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.233.251 (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Marx and Racism section has been removed again. As the person who removed them did not engage with the discussion here the comments should be reinstated. This is a page about the person Karl Marx, not Marxism, there seems to be many people who want to whitewash secondary scholarship on Marx the person as these have been repeatedly deleted despite being part of the contemporary debate about the man from his professional biographers. I think it's very poor form of these people not to justify why they are doing this on the discussion page when a section has been made to discuss it. I think this is perhaps because they don't have a reply to my comments above. These are either deletions for political purposes or these people are ignorant vandals. In either case they should be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.232.232 (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Views of Marxism

Why don't we change this to Views of Marxism and have both posts positive and negative? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Because marx was not the same thing as Marxism. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

slaves

Johnny Goodman added a line about Marx writing and agitating against slavery, as if this had beans to do with Marx's racist comments about Blacks. Goodman provided no references so I deleted it. Goodman did mention Capital vol I chapter 10, but this is hardly Marx writing against slavery as such. Marx did write, "In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, that ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California." Clearly, here as in his essay on India Marx sees a progression from slavery to capitalism to socialism. Slaves must be freed so that American can be more fully capitalist, and America needs to be capitalist before there will be a worker's revolution. Just as clearly, Marx's sympathies are with the working class and not slaves; his hope for the end of slavery is not meant to benefit Blacks but rather Whites. I fail to see how this is relevant to the section of the article in question. We should not take quotes out of context just to make points no real historian or biographer of Marx has made. And Goodman provides no evidence at all of Marx agitating or organizing or doing anything in the fight against slavery (which still existed in Spanish territories). If someone can find a reliable secondary source that discusses Marx's views on Blacks and slaves, great, in the meantime, no misuse of quotes please. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Credit Crunch

Er....looks like Marx's prediction as to the downfall of monopoly capitalism is now coming true...Colin4C (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)