Talk:Criticisms of Marxism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Ultramarine, much of the stuff is repeated from Criticisms of communism. Could you at least remove from one of the articles?

Also, Bryan Caplan is not a major critic. You should find more notable people who have criticised human rights, AND you should include counterarguments, like you are doing with the capitalism article. -- infinity0 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan has 145,000 Goggle hits. He has a well-known website, The Museum of Communism. He is notable enough.Ultramarine 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

'"Bryan Caplan" Marxism' has 11,600 hits. He is not known prkimarily for criticising marxism. Even so, please insert defences against those arguments. -- infinity0 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can do it, if you have any. There is no policy in Wikipedia that there must be a counter-argument for every argument.Ultramarine 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

POV-forking policy says that "Criticisms of" must include counterarguments. You yourself keep repeating this for the "Criticisms of capitalism" article, please be honourable and do the same for this article! Even if there is no policy for this, you yourself have kept on inserting defences into capitalist articles; please treat all articles equally and do the same for this one. -- infinity0 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if there are any. Feel free to add any good one, preferably sourced.Ultramarine 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You know there are. I am busy with other things at the moment. Since the article does not contain counterarguments you are not following NPOV. Please think about writing for the enemy, however much you dislike to. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, please TRY to leave your personal views behind this? -- infinity0 21:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not. Then I would add them.Ultramarine 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you take this attitude? Do you think perhaps that if there were no counterarguments then nobody would take this position? Please, make an attempt to open your mind. -- infinity0 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Marxists do not know these criticisms. If there are any counter-arguments, preferably sourced, add them.Ultramarine 21:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Ultramarine, I am just requesting a favour from you that for once, you try to represent both sides of the story. That is what NPOV and the encyclopedia is about. Could you please at least just represent *both sides*? -- infinity0 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my friendly advice to you. Marxism is fundamentally flawed. But the good news is that you do not need to be a Marxist to be a socialist. Preferably, I would suggest a social democracy. They can actually show that they have done many good things.Ultramarine 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is your problem. You think "Marxism is fundamentally flawed" is the truth. But there are many people who disagree with you. Can't you at least let them have their voice? What you are doing is the equivalent of censorship; you're refusing to acknowledge their existence and their right of speech. -- infinity0 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy, if I can find a reliable one, or if you can find a reliable one? Ultramarine 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Ultramarine. Nice to see you again. :) Now, on to business. First, let's not play any games about there not being counter-arguments to criticisms of Marxism. Most of the criticisms you listed are either directed at Marx himself or famous Marxists that died over 60 years ago. Surely you must realize that all of these issues have already generated lengthy discussion and there are probably hundreds of counter- and counter-counter-arguments. Now I understand if you refuse to go look for them - since you are not required to do so - but if we are to have a productive discussion here, I would appreciate it if you at least acknowledged their existence. Logic dictates that Marxists must have answered 60 year-old objections (and, in some cases, 150 year-old objections).
Also, forgive me for saying this, but many of the criticisms you have inserted are very bad and either not directed at Marxism alone or directed at a small detail that you could reject and still be a Marxist. As a utilitarian, for example, I do not believe in the existence of any immutable human rights. I support human rights to the extent that they increase total happiness. If there is a way to increase happiness more effectively by getting rid of an existing human right, I will be the first to say that we must go ahead and do it. Bryan Caplan is arguing from a deontological libertarian standpoint based on a belief in immutable "natural rights" that must be respected no matter what. He is playing the classical deontological trick of making his views appear more respectable by arguing that following his strict rules will incidentally also produce the best results. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Any philosopher would immediately call him on this.
In any case, the article as it stands now is unbalanced. I have no desire to get involved with it just yet - and besides, you're clearly not finished - so here's what I propose: I'll mark it with the unbalanced tag and you can have a free hand to develop it as you see fit, until you are done. Then I'll come over, have a look, research counter-criticisms and add them. Then we can negotiate the final form of the article. Deal?
Oh, one last thing - as infinity pointed out, this article is entirely redundant with the second half of criticisms of communism. Do you want to split off that half of the article? If yes, we'll have to rename criticisms of communism into criticisms of Communist states or something similar. -- Nikodemos 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Your proposals seems fine. Let me just note that it is not for logical arguments that Marxism has thrived, it is because of the emotional appeal of an equilitarian utopia. Marxists would better spend their time in labor parties. Ultramarine 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The emotional appeal of an egalitarian utopia does not require a complicated political theory to support it. Marxism would never have started in the first place if there weren't people wishing to create an egalitarian utopia on rational grounds. Even if you believe that Marxism is emotional junk, Marxists certainly don't, and they had to prove it to themselves and their supporters. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Copy: Socialism is nice theory, if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy. Marxism has the added advantage of having a convoluted theory that is almost incomprehensible when digging deeper which seems very impressive. The same thing applies most religions. A mass appeal and a complex theology for the intellectual. Ultramarine 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I told you, I don't have time right now. What I am asking is a favour, that you do it. It would be a good exercise for you anyway. Just think of it as an experiment :) -- infinity0 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I knew good arguments against, I would of course be a Marxist! I started out on the far left, but the lack of arguments has moved me more to the center.Ultramarine 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered pragmatic far-leftism? ;) The worst thing about the far left is that it tends to be dogmatic, and that drives people away. Never forget that you can pick and choose which ideas to support, and there's nothing wrong with being moderate on some issues and radical on others. That's how I am. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not true, Ultramarine. You can *know* the contents of arguments without having to agree with them. Obviously, if you don't agree with them then you have your own counterarguments against that, but then it gets complicated, and that is where we stop adding content into the article. An encyclopedia article cannot contain everything. But the basic arguments from both sides should at least be included.
A good way of including both sides of an argument is to include arguments which do not directly attack each other; this avoids the desire to repeatedly make points and counter-points. -- infinity0 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to assume that there must be counter-arguments. But that is not true, look for example at the flat-earth theory.Ultramarine 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think that? if so, why? Marxism has substantially more people taking it seriously than FET. -- infinity0 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Socialism is nice theory, if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy. Marxism has the added advantage of having a convoluted theory that is almost incomprehensible when digging deeper which seems very impressive. The same thing applies most religions. A mass appeal and a complex theology for the intellectual.Ultramarine 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if that were true, most religions also have a barrage of counter-criticisms to strike against anything you throw at them. Creationism was a sizable article the last time I checked, despite its utter absurdity. Simply put, any idea with more than a few hundred supporters, no matter how crazy, has its arsenal of arguments. For Marxist arguments, take a look over marxist.org In any case, this discussion is sterile. We already have a deal. I'll go add the unbalanced tag, and you can edit away.
Btw, the idea that "if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy" has its merits. It leads to the question, "how do you get everyone to be nice and share?". And if you have a good answer to that question, you've got the ingredients for a great society. -- Nikodemos 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Creationism has difficulty responding to many questions.Ultramarine 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ultramarine, you say that you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist. That is true. It is also true that you can be a Marxist and not support Communist states or anything like them. Indeed, Marxism itself mostly consists of criticisms of capitalism. A Marxist could logically support any system that is more egalitarian than capitalism. A friend of mine is a Marxist social democrat (he believes that social democracy + modern western economies = a society that is fundamentally different from the 19th century capitalism that Marx was criticizing). Since Marxism is not a religion, a Marxist can freely reject any part he doesn't like. Don't like Marx's criticism of human rights? Abandon it! -- Nikodemos 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A person is arguably not a Marxist if he does not follow Marx. Marx explicitly rejected all capitalism, do some forms of social democracy are certainly not Marxist. See also my reply above.Ultramarine 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In that case, just about every self-proclaimed Marxist from Lenin to the present day was not a true Marxist, since they all rejected large parts of Marx's ideas. I like to pick and choose which of Marx's ideas seem good to me and support those without worrying myself about the rest. How would you classify me? Most importantly, you should avoid creating an article which implies guilt by association of the form "Marx was wrong about X, Y and Z, therefore he was wrong about everything". The ONLY reason I defend articles on Communist states and the like is because I am sick and tired of people making the leap from "some socialists are wrong about something" to "all socialists are wrong about everything". -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
All Marxist-leninists certainly argued that they followed Marx. Have you considered that if Marx was wrong on some fundamental things like human nature, then he may have been wrong on other things also.Ultramarine 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Marxist-Leninists sometimes used the most arcane intellectual tricks to somehow get Marx and Lenin to agree, and also to get each and every one of themselves agree with Lenin on everything - as you so adequately put it, they exhibited clearly religious behaviour. However, there is no particular reason why all Marxists need to act this way. Also, I happen to agree with Marx on human nature. At least, human nature is clearly not engineered for an economic system - capitalism - that has barely existed for a few centuries. If there is any human nature at all, it is logically best suited to a tribal hunter-gatherer society (preferably in the African savannah). -- Nikodemos 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and that belief is part of the explanation for the mass killings that occurred, as Pipes notes.Ultramarine 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Guilt by association. Please note that if A -> B that does not mean that also B -> A. If Hitler was a vegetarian that does not mean that all vegetarians are like Hitler. If Stalin held a certain belief that does not logically imply that all who hold that belief must also agree with everything else Stalin believed and did. I believe in a highly flexible human nature, but I am also a utilitarian, and the actions of Stalin and Mao cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds. -- Nikodemos 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If you pick some parts of Marx's theory and reject others, then you are arguably not a Marxist anymore. It would be better to state socialist that agrees with Marx on some points.Ultramarine 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

'The human rights abuses, political repression and economic problems of several historical Communist states have done much to destroy Karl Marx's reputation in the Western world, particularly following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the Soviet bureaucracy often invoked him in their propaganda.'

This is pretty unaccepatable to me. Before even explaining what Marxism is, who is criticizing it etc., the intro talks about human rights abuses and political repression. This deliberatly places a bad spin on Marxism, without objectively explaining how these are linked to Marxism (it explains how they are tenuously linked to Marx, but this is irrelevant (who's to say Marx was a Marxist?)). The article seems 'unbalanced' anyway, but the info sets it off on the wrong foot. --Robdurbar 22:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Robdurbar 08:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year to all! Here's my problem with a section of the article: The introductory note states: "This article is on criticisms of Marxism, a branch of socialism. See criticisms of socialism for a discussion of objections to socialism in general. These concepts are not identical; many socialist supporters also criticize Marxism." Well, the first paragraph of "General criticisms" is a broad critique, not of Marxism, but of "communism." This, to me, violates the spirit of the introductory note. I'd like to take out Eric Hoffer's criticism, if that sounds okay to everyone. Thanks! --Dialecticas 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoffer is criticzing Marxism, we can replace "communism" with Marxism if you prefer. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as "communist" ideology, even if many use it as a synonym for Marxism. In Marxist theory communism is the classless and stateless society that will follow the dictatorship of the proletariat.Ultramarine 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the question is, does Hoffer's The True Believer actually criticize Marxism? It just doesn't work to say "Marxism" and "communism" are synonymous. We need a citation referring to an explicit critique of Marxism by Hoffer, or else he does not belong in the article. Right? --Dialecticas 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
He is certainly not criticzing every communal society, but the specific ideology advocated by Marx and its followers. That is, Marxism. That is, he is not criticzing for example those living in a communal society like Kibbutz.Ultramarine 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
A citation or specific quote from Hoffer is needed. "Communal society," and whatever other things Hoffer is criticizing, is not what this entry is meant to be about. This entry is meant to demonstrate serious criticisms of Marxism, and not just any pov that calls variations of communalism "Marxism," or "utopian," or whatever. More info to demonstrate appropriateness is needed, or else we should delete Hoffer. --Dialecticas 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As I stated, Hoffer is not criticzing all communal societies or advocates of them. He is criticzing Marxism. Read the Wikipedia article: The True Believer.Ultramarine 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is backed-up after a reading of The True Beleiver entry. *Not once* does Marxism appear in the article. As the article states, "The True Believer" "discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism." This is not equivalent to a critique of Marxism, not in any way. The article describes a psychological analysis of all mass movements; Marxism is a philosophy, not a mass movement. I'm sorry but unless some verifiable reference is made to a direct critique of Marxism, and not tangential arguments dealing with not-specifically-Marxian phenomena, the reference to Hoffer should go. --Dialecticas 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is link giving another description: [1]Ultramarine 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Another: [2]Ultramarine 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ultramarine, I think you could go a long way toward ending this dispute if you could offer some EXACT citation, including a line reference, that makes clear that Hoffer is specifically talking about Marxism itself. Dialecticas makes a good point that Hoffer seems to be talking about a more general phenomena, of which Marxism might be a part. Unless we can make clear that Hoffer really IS talking about Marxism, it seems misleading to cite him in an article about Marxism. That's not to say that Hoffer's thoughts are worthless, or even that they're not somehow tangentially germane to the topic; they just may not belong in an article that purports to limit itself to a discussion only of Marxism.--Kgarrett 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, if we can't resolve the dispute about what Hoffer is discussing, perhaps we can add some notation about the relationship between Marxism and more general "communalist" movements and/or theories, and then cite Hoffer as a leading figure in that related debate. (Of course, that is getting pretty tangential from the main topic of the article) Would somebody like to throw out some proposed language that would satisfy both sides? It doesn't seem that Dialecticas is totally opposed to any reference to Hoffer at all, as long as it isn't misleadingly presented as a reference to Marxism if it really is not.--Kgarrett 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hoffer is talking about mass movements and he argues that the followers of Marx formed one such. See the links above where he explicitly mentions Marx and Lenin.Ultramarine 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, a couple of us have repeatedly requested *specific* references/notations/quotes, and you have not supplied them. I have deleted the controversial assertions from the entry pending correct citation of passages with full references. --Dialecticas 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, do not edit this page again without the requested information. Myself, and a mediator, have detailed our concerns and your recent edit did not allay them. In fact, I believe that your insertion of "fake evidence" (providing a citation of commentary on the controversial material *does not* speak to the problem) harms your credibility. Again, do not revert my edit unless the concerns are dealt with. --Dialecticas 22:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Page numbers in Hoffer's book added.Ultramarine 08:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
To quote Hoffer "Thus by denigrating prevailing beliefs and loyalties, the militant man of words unwittingly creates in the disillusioned masses a hunger for faith. For the majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication, or some passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves. Thus, in spite of himself, the scoffing man of words becomes the precursor of a new faith."
"The fanatics and the faith-hungry masses, however, are likely to invest such speculations with the certitude of holy writ, and make them the fountainhead of a new faith. Jesus was not a Christian, nor was Marx a Marxist."Ultramarine 08:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article needs to cite actual sources when refering to what "Marx said" or "Engels said". Most of M & E's works are avaliable at marxists.org so you coul get it from there. I consider that citing a critique saying "marx said x, but x is wrong" is not valid; we should cite what they refer to and what is their point separatly

There are sources. What statement is unsourced?Ultramarine 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV? And other points...

I think that this article is entirely necessary, but it does seem to suffer from a somewhat non-neutral POV. Although this is partly inevitable in an article that is probably intended as a companion article to Marxism, there does not seem to be much representation of how the criticisms of Marxism might themselves be criticised. For example, Richard Pipes is a neo-conservative Historian who would be expected to criticise Marxism. I have read the book of his that is cited in this article, and there seem to me to be various flaws in his argument. Moreover, it is a criticism of Soviet Communism, a political system that wasn't up and running until around 35 years until after Marx's death and which had a variety of implementations: Stalinist Communism differs in many ways from Leninist Communism, for example.

One massively valid criticism of Marxism that is not included is that offered by the various postmodern thinkers who claim it is a grand narrative. Also, Jean Baudrillard has strongly criticised the labour theory of value, and this does not seem to be mentioned in the article.

Just to lay my own ideological cards on the table, I completely accept the labour theory of value and other aspects of Marx's economic analysis, but I don't accept that the proletarian revolution is inevitable or that any form of dictatorship is a necessary evil which paves the way for the classless society. I don't want to start editing the article before my concerns have been aired since I feel we could end up with a bit of an edit war.

In short, I guess I'm asking: what is Marxism, as far as this article is concerned? It seems that the various strands of Marx's thought need to be subsectioned, and then the separate criticisms (and possible counterarguments) need to be outlined under each subsection. --Jim (Talk) 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if you added any further valid criticism that know of. Regarding the labor theory of value, it is briefly mentioned but it is a complicated subject probably better discussed in detail in the article about that. Regarding Pipes, it would be good with sourced counter-arguments. Note that Pipes attacks Marxism's view that human nature can be changed radically, not really the Communist states specifically, so his criticism should be mentioned regardless of one considers these states Marxist or not.Ultramarine 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental revert

Sorry Ultramarine, I reverted your edits in error: I thought the edit conflict was because I had pressed "Submit" twice.

I will leave in the {{fact}} in the Pipes bit though, as no citation is given for Pipes' source. Where does Trotsky say what Pipes claims he said? --Jim (Talk) 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is stated in Pipes book on stated pages but unfortunately I do not have it at home and I do not remember exactly what work Pipes quotes for this.Ultramarine
No probs. I assumed that Pipes would cite his source but I think for something as seemingly controversial as his quote from Trotsky the direct source should be indicated here: maybe what Trotsky actually wrote should be included, if only to foreclose criticisms.
I've added a little on Althusserian Marxism, and subsequent critiques. I don't want the article to expand to include every thrust and counter-thrust of the debate, but I do think the Hindess and Hirst stuff is important. I have left out Benton's counterargument because the Hindess and Hirst position is the one that is usually accepted nowadays in academia. --Jim (Talk) 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting addition. I will probably retrieve Pipes's book from a library in the coming weeks. I need it for other articles and then I can add the citation.Ultramarine 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labor theory of value

The article says:

Fundamental to Marxist theory is the labor theory of value. The theory is rejected for various reasons by the vast majority of economists today. Marginalism is seen as more correct. This is an important explanation for why Marxism has relatively little influence among economists today. Marxists have made various responses to the objections.

And that's it for the section.

Rejected for various reasons - okay... What are they? Some citations? Marginalism is seen as more correct by whom - the vast majority of economists? How is that determined? Why is marginalism seen as more correct? 202.81.18.30 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC) spider

The subject is quite complicated and not easily summarized in a few paragraphs in this article. Please have a look at labor theory of value and marginalism for a full description.Ultramarine 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very weak section given that Adam Smith and David Ricardo's labour theory of value was criticised by Marx and in effect supplanted by Marx with his 'socially necessary labour theory of value'. The criticism of Marxism cannot be confused with criticism of the labour theory of value.

The heading should be changed to "Socially necessary labour theory of value" if the article as a whole is to retain its direction as a description of Marxism.

General criticism of a "labour theory of value" is best expounded elsewhere.

ChrisWarren 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

I removed this paragraph because of Wikipedia's original research policy. In particular: "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. ...

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: ...

  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;" -- Vision Thing -- 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caplan and human rights

The section addressing Caplan's critique of Marx's views on the human rights deserves, in my opinion, further elaboration: it simply states that human rights are some sort of religious dogma, which one must accept or be doomed to hell. What declares itself to be critisizm of Marx is actually only delivering, and by omission of valid counter-argument, supporting his theses. --Golioder 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, also the "general criticism" is very vague. Hoffer's argument is simply saying that Marxism is a form of ideology. This alone, again, is surely an argument FOR Marxism, since it claims to be the only ideology where one knows one is in ideology - in contrast to other ideologies, such as humanism, existentialism, liberalism etc., which consider themselves to be neutral, Marxism is perfectly aware of the necessity of taking (class, sex, or other) sides. Koestler's argument, at least in the present form, doesn't seem worthy of enlisting at all. Not only is it vague and generalizing, as it throws completely different things under a single title, it also simply states Marxist views, but miscomprehends them as forming a closed system. --Golioder 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoffer's arguments regarding the views and personality of a True Believer is rather different from your description. Also, Nazists and those with a strong faith certainly do not consider themselves to be neutral. Regarding Caplan and Koestler, if there are more sourced counter-arguments, then they should be added.Ultramarine 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Good, "general criticism" now looks less like "vague criticism". I still find it pro-Marxist, though. - About Nazis and religious fundamentalists - they are hardly comparable to Marxism, humanism, liberalism or existentialism. I would even venture to say that no racism can pass for a "system of ideas" or ideology, it is simply a matter of hatred taking the form of thought; it is a question for medicine, not for philosophy, science or system of ideas. The latter is obviously my personal opinion, though.
And regarding Caplan's counter-arguments to Marxist criticism of human rights - I am really not a Caplan connoisseur, so I hoped someone else will have fun with finding those. I can only say that, in this article, his stance sounds like "any criticism of HR inevitably leads to tyranny, just as any post-Newton physics inevitably leads to Hiroshima". This is because it is too short, to make sure. --Golioder 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We should probably remove the section on human rights. Caplan is a professor of economics, and so presumably a reliable source for articles on economic. As far as Marxism goes, though, he's just some random guy with a website; he has no particular standing as a critic of Marxism, and indeed makes obvious errors in his reading of Marx. VoluntarySlave 07:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are errors, point them out using sources. Regarding the subject human rights, if anything this is a branch of philosophy, and Caplan has written extensivly regarind this.[3] Ultramarine 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
But he hasn't published anything on Marx, and only tangentially on human rights, according to his CV. The "extensive writings" you point to, apart from mostly being in other areas of philosophy, are personal correspondence, mailing list postings, or self-published essays - like I say, the work of a random guy with a website, not a source we have any reason to include in this article. It seems to me that the obligation is on you, if you want the section to remain, to show why we should take Caplan seriously. VoluntarySlave 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Using this logic, the only persons who should be allowed to criticze, for example, the Catholic position regarding abortion are persons who have published a theological paper on this subject. It would be far more interesting if the claimed errors in his reading of Marx was presented so there was an actual debate instead of using ad hominem. Also, note that almost every single pro-Marxist argument is this article is completely unsourced and using a strict standard they should be removed.Ultramarine 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, clearly criticisms of the Catholic position on abortion should be those from notable sources, not from, say, my blog. I don't see what your point is - if you think Caplan is a source we should take account of, fine, but explain why. The issue here is not about debating whether Caplan is right or not: AFAICS, we have no reason to take him seriously as a source in the first place. VoluntarySlave 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Caplan is a well-known economist and libertarian, not some random guy. Presumably libertarians are allowed to voice criticisms? Again, ad hominem is not very interesting, actual arguments would be more interesting. Caplan is merely citing Marx's own statements, not inventing them. Also, note that almost every single pro-Marxist argument is this article is completely unsourced and using a strict standard they should be removed.Ultramarine 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, please explain why you think Caplan's criticisms of Marxism are notable (not his writings on economics or libertarianism, but the particular writings that are being referenced here). The fact that he's a "well known economist and libertarian" is neither here or there. The question is, are his criticisms of Marxism backed up by demonstrable expertise (there's no sign of this in his CV), or have they been particularly influential (the latter may be the case, I don't know if - if you have sources that show his influence, please present them). VoluntarySlave 19:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that only Marxists should be allowed to criticze Marx. Obviously prominent libertarians can do so also, like Caplan. 140,000 Goggle hits, compared to some "Important Marxists" in the Marxism template, like Karl Korsch, who gets 51,000, or Georgi Plekhanov who gets 16,000. Again, ad hominem is not very interesting, actual arguments would be more interesting. Caplan is merely citing Marx's own statements, not inventing them. Also, note that almost every single pro-Marxist argument is this article is completely unsourced and using a strict standard they should be removed.Ultramarine 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm not saying that only Marxists can criticize Marx. I'm saying that only people who we have reason to believe know something about Marxism should be cited as critics of Marx. Popper wasn't a Marxist, but citing his criticisms of Marx is perfectly sensible - he published extensive work on Marx, and his positions have been widely influential. Likewise Koestler and Conquest. The point is not whether these people are famous or not: the point is that their critcisms of Marxism are either taken seriously by academics, or widely influential. As far as I can see, there's no evidence for either in Caplan's case (and repeating the words "ad hominem" won't change the fact that my criticism of Caplan's notability isn't, in fact, an ad hominem argument). VoluntarySlave 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Evidence has already been presented for notability. It would be better to use arguments showing that his is wrong instead of ad hominem.Ultramarine 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What evidence? Your google count shows he is notable, but not that his criticism of Marxism is notable, which is my whole point. Bono is notable, but that doesn't mean every opinion he has is an appropriate source to cite for any article. I'm not interested in whether he is right or wrong (Wikipedia is not based on what is true or false, but on what can be verified), but in whether he is an appropriate source. VoluntarySlave 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"Museum of Communism" + caplan gets 60,000 Goggle hits, so notable.Ultramarine 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The section Criticisms_of_Marxism#Human_rights seems to quote Marx.

  • It is not clear for the reader from which of his works these quotes stem.
  • It is not clear if it is Caplan who uses the quotes to support his claims, or if Wikipedia directly quotes Marx to explain something.

So as long as the Caplan quote is still in the article, it should be clearified from which of Marx works the quotes come, and who quotes him.

Please note WP:Reliable_sources#Reliable_sources:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking.

The Caplan-page is edited only by the author. Thus it is a questionable source.

Wikipedia makes the exception of

2. Professional self-published sources
When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications.

So in order to include Caplan's page as a source for Wikipedia, there should exist a publication of his claims about Marx by an reliable independent third party.

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:(...)
  • claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.(...)

It seems that Caplan's claim contradicts the prevailing view.

Thus I agree with those above who have said that the Caplan-page alone isn't a sufficient source. Schwalker 10:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Caplan is a notable source as shown above. Regarding its reliability, he is only quoting Marx and Engles and lists his sources: [4].Ultramarine 10:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute the “notability” of the Caplan page, but rather its reliability as a source for Wikipedia. If it is him who quotes Marx ( Engles too? ) in this section, then the Wikipedia article should tell this to the reader. If Caplan gives the places where he has found the quotes, then it would be beneficial if Wikipedia reproduces this places, so that the reader can look it up in the original works of Marx. Schwalker 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the article gives a source where Caplan lists his sources: [5]. It is not necessary to list them, anymore than it is necessary to list all the thousands of sources used in, say, The Black Book of Communism, when using this book as a source in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note Citing_sources#When_you_quote_someone

Say where you got it
It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

So it is necessary to make it clear for the reader that the Marx quotes come from the Caplan page and not directly from some Marx book. Also it is helpfull for the reader if they directly can see where Caplan has found the material which is taken from the Caplan page and reproduced at Wikipedia.

Perhaps I should clarify that the Caplan page is not reliable as a (sole) source for Caplan's own claim that Marx's notion of human rights would lead to tyranny and oppression of dissidents. Schwalker 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarified.Ultramarine 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Since we seem to agree on the necessity to make clear that Caplan is the intermediate source, I have allowed myself to do some more edits: Caplan does critisize Marx for broadening rather than for a rejection of (bourgeois) human rights. In my reading, it is not clear whether Caplan is quoting "political emancipation itself is not human emancipation" from the Critique of the Gotha Program. I could not find the Manifesto quote on the Caplan page, therefore removed it. Schwalker 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The text is called "The Attack on 'Bourgeois Freedom'" The Manifesto quote is in a section to the upper right. The political emancipation quote if from On the Jewish Question[6]Ultramarine 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess now you are using [7] as a source, while the article still says[8]. Schwalker 10:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, corrected.Ultramarine 12:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'The Great Contradiction'

I need someone to help me figure out what this paragraph means.

"Mark's Argument also involves a basic contradiction. If competition equalizes wages between industries, it should also equalize the rate of Profit on capital. But if the rate of profit of capital is the same between industries with different capital/labor ratios, there cannot be equal rates of surplus value per worker between industries, and the prices of products produced in various industries cannot correspond to the amount of labor embodied; this result contradicts the labor theory of value. This paradox came to be known as the "Great Contradiction." Marx saw the contradiction n his argument and attempted to Correct it in the third volume of "Das Kapital, where he argued that, although surplus value is produced in proportion to the labor employed, it is distributed in proportion to the amount of capital employed. Source: Principles of Economics, Willis L. Peterson, 1989

My apologies that I had to copy that out of a book, but I do not quite understand it. I am also unsure on where such a thing would go. Also, I have only one source for it because it hasn't appeared anywhere else.

                                                Sincerely 63.232.84.193 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag removed

I've removed the obtuse POV tag. The entire point of a "criticisms of..." article is to split off the criticisms section of a given topic into its own space. They are critical by definition and by design. To counter the points made in such an article is to render it moot. If the article is to become a debate, it should be named accordingly (e.g., "Debates on Marxism"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Does Ultramarine run this page or something? It seems that any attempts to add counter-criticisms are hastily deleted, leaving poorly sourced and long refuted arguments unchecked. For example, in the Utopian Socialism section there is this (surely irrelevant) sentence:

Muravchik further argues that, in contrast, Marx made an untestable prophecy, and that Marx's view that socialism would be created by impersonal historical forces may lead one to conclude that it is unnecessary to strive for socialism, because it will happen anyway.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Utopian Socialism and is instead the return (yet) again of the fatalist approach to Marx's historical materialism. This fatalist approach is rejected by virtually everything single Marxist (I cannot think of any Marxist's who subscribe to it off the top of my head, and I know a lot of them). Presenting it here is the equivalent of a criticism pf Darwinian evolution being based on Lamarckian theory. Marx himself rejected an entirely impersonal nature of history, most famously in the "Theses on Feuerbach". e.g - "The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice." here he quite clearly rejects the personal nature of history and society. Man can change his nature, man can interact with impersonal forces. There is another quote which says this even more explicitly, but I can't find it right now. He argues that simply acknowledging these impersonal forces is useless, and that things will not change unless social practice (praxis) is derived from philosophy. In his own words "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.". This is more than just a call to arms to intellectuals. If history and society are entirely based on impersonal forces, then all man could possibly do would be to interpret. But in fact man can do more - he can change nature by putting things into practice.

The argument I have presented here has been knocked up in five minutes from a single Marxist source, if I had the time I could write a book refuting this fatalist myth, but then again plenty of Marxists already have, most notably Trotsky and Gramsci. Yet when I added the point in the Utopian Socialism section that virtually no Marxist takes the fatalist/economistic/super-determinist whatever you want to call it stance, it is deleted. The reason? Irrelevance! Yet the completely irrevelant, worthless and refuted statement by some critic who has a very meagre understanding of Marxism remains!

I also deleted the nonsense criticism in the prediction section that Marx claimed real wages would only decline, yet it was brought back all the same. Seeing as only Marx critics are accepted as sources here, here are the words of Mark Blaug: "Marx never denied that real wages might rise under capitalism. He strongly implied that labor's relative share might fall but in fact never used the term relative impoverishment. The notion that he pronounced a general theory of the growing poverty of the working class is just folklore Marxism". He also writes "the gap between what Marx predicted and what actually happened over the next 100 years is so great that the Marxist system has been decisively refuted" just in case you think he's a Marxist. Impoverishment meant a relative decline in the income of workers compared to capitalists. There is a fairly good paper here that tackles criticisms like this:http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/working%20papers/BLAUG.pdf

So, is it Wikipedia's policy to allow members to hijack some of it's webpages? I was on the TSSI page earlier and it was the opposite of what is going on here, with a particular faction of Marxists essentially running the show and silencing all criticisms. This page certainly needs to be tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.219.161 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That section isn't really about Utopian Socialism, it's about a criticism, from Joshua Muravchik, that Marxism's claim to be more scientific than the utopian socialists was false. I've tried to rephrase it to make that more clear, although, given that it's just as aside in one article, I'm not sure it's a notable enough criticism to have a section of its own. Perhaps it could be rolled into the "pseudoscience" section?VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marx's Antisemitism

Question: What does the section "Marx's Antisemitism" has to do with Marxism? this is a criticism to Marx as a person and not marxism the ideology! Please remove it!

It does appear in his Marx's writings and had an influence. Not something he said or did in private.Ultramarine (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

yes but that had nothing to do with marxism his political and economic writings are not anti-semitic , and marxism itself (that what the article is about!!!!!) has nothing to do with antisemitism so i think that this topic doesn't belong here. It's absurd for an encyclopedia to have an irrelevant section on such an important topic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.135.168 (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Marxism includes many things, philosophy and psychology, not only economics or political science. Anti-semitism is certainly partly also a political issue. But it may have undue weight and there are few counterarguments. I propose shortening the material and instead link to Marx article and "Alleged antisemitism" there. This material is already there.Ultramarine (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced material

See [9]Bryan Caplan is notable scholar. "Museum of Communism" + Caplan gets 70,000 Google hits. Sources are given for the quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, and Kaplan is not a notable scholar of communism. Furthermore, the interpolation of quotes from Marx supposedly to support a particular interpretation, strikes me as original research. I'm sure there are better sources for criticisms of Marx on human rights.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, I've just checked WP:V, which says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Caplan's CV does not mention any publications on Marxism or on human rights; he is not "an established expert" on either of the two relevant fields. I think this is an open-and-shut case: Caplan's self-published website is not a reliable source.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible section merge

I'm at a loss to see why 'Human nature completely determined by the environment' is substantively different to 'Historical materialism' as well as being an egregious and inaccurate name for a section. These should be merged. Furthermore, to include a (very large) paragraph on a non-academic, minor historian (Richard Pipes) who poses very few original or interesting criticisms strikes me as rather odd. On a broader level, if my memory serves me right then the Library of Congress estimated that Marx is the third most written-about individual of all time. You wouldn't even be able to read the number of counter-arguments in your lifetime, Ultramarine. This article does include some important and influential criticisms (e.g. Popper) but many of them appear to be present for the sake of criticism itself even if they are valid. By this I mean that the article is hardly the model of an encyclopedic overview of the most influential, important and original criticisms of Marxism. Rather, it simply picks and chooses a few books that criticise Marxism at random.Supernoodles (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass deletion of sourced material

See [10]. Please explain. The included material include criticisms by many well-known figures such as Popper, Weber, and Hoffer. Exact sources are given. The section about anti-semitism was not only about Marx but also how his views influenced Marxism as Flannery pointed out.Ultramarine (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit summaries are self explanatory. Please address the issues cited there for each section before reverting. These sections were horrendously unencyclopedic, free associating OR, to trhe extent it was even research. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hoffer did not offer a critique of Marxism
Yes, he did. Read the source.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
rm OR section that contained no "criticism"
Fine. I will add a better source.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC):
no Weber didnt criticize Marx' theory of alienation, rm OR
Weber doesnt mention Marx in the book at all, rm OR
Yes he did. Read the source.
Marx' antisemitism, real or not, is not "Marxism", critiques of which which is what this article is supposedly about
Again, Marx's view influenced Marxism according to some critics.
No explanations given for removing "Marx's predictions" section citing for example Popper.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A. No, Hoffer does not discuss Marxism he discusses communist regimes--he has maybe one passing mention of Marxism, and it is not a critique.
B. re Weber--yes, read the source. this obscure author is doing his own comparison of Weber and Marx. Weber himself did not comment on Marx' theory of alienation.
C Antisemitism--again, respond to the summary--this article is critiques of marxism--you would need to find a source which criticizes MARXISM for being antisemitic, not Marx.
D. The "predictions" section is a confusing OR (you should pardon the expression) mini essay...what is the criticism, and who is making it?
I'm not trying to be contentious--these sections are horrible, confusing rambling OR (and the remasining parts of the article are little better)--please address these issues before reverting. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of random personal mini essays. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
E. The Black Book of Communism is a source no one takes seriuosly--it accuses communists of killing tens of thousands of people in the United States!--and ti is NOT a "criticism of Marxism", it's a Cold ar style rant. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A. Hoffer discusses mass movements and the communist movement is one example.
B. At the very least, Weber is often seen as giving alternative explanation for Marxism. Source given for this regarding alienation, more can be added if you insist. Here is one example regarding Weber being an alternative explanation to Marx regarding the importance of cultural factors: [11]
C. From the material you deleted " In their view, Marx's equation of Judaism with capitalism, together with his pronouncements on Jews, strongly influenced socialist movements and shaped their attitudes and policies toward the Jews."
D. If if it confusing, then improve. No justification for removing for example Popper's criticism.
E. The Black Book of Communism if an academic book. If you want to criticze it, add your won sourced view. "it accuses communists of killing tens of thousands of people in the United States" Page number please, I have it in front of me.Ultramarine (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This play by the letters approach is cool!
A. Then Hoffer's views belong in a critique of communist regimes and movements, not Marxism. (if we are not giong to make that distinction, then this article is even more pointless).
B. Surely you see that is original research. If Weber does not, HIMSELF, critique Marxism, then it can't go in.
C. Doesnt work--You need a specific source that says, basically, "Marxism is antisemitic because...." this is an encyclopedia article on perhaps the most notable thinker of the past 500 years (love him or hate him). Haphazard half sentence random quotes dredged up to fit a section are not encyclopedic; it's tabloid journalism. Let's try to maintain some integrity--even Hitler gets better treatment in his articles.
D. I honestly don't see what the criticism is, and it's buried in an OR mismash.
E. I may well be wrong about the US figure (it was told to me by someone else)--however, its not an WP:RS for this article, as it is a analysis of communist regimes and movements, (and includes practically everyone who ever died anywhwere if there was a "communist" state or movemetn even remotely involved. It is no more a realiable source than a critique of Iran's human rigths record wuold be a valid source for an article on "Criticisms of Islam," or a book on US involvement in Vietnam in an article "criticisms of Jeffersonian democracy" Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A. Hoffer's charateristics apply to Marxist ideology. Not all mass movements are criticized by Hoffer but only certain that fulfill certain criteria due to their ideas.
B. Incorrect. I can state that others (sourced) see Weber's ideas as an alternative to Marx.
C. I need not present "the Truth", only a sourced view. "On the Jewish Question" is an important work in Marxist ideology and many see it as anti-semitic.
D. Then read the given source.
E. The Black Book of Communism is an academic work and is thus as reliable as a source can be in Wikipedia. The conclusion see Marxist ideology as contributing.Ultramarine (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<---OK, I tried, and am not going to pursue it nor will I revert out whatever you restore. . I'll leave it to you and other editors to sort it out--hope my comments were helpful. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, a majority of arguments by Boodlesthecat are not convincing. He said: "A source no one takes seriuosly ... it's a Cold war style rant.". This is a published academic book, a secondary source, which is great per WP:verifiability. All other sources by Ultramarine also looks good to me.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is "Criticisms of Marxism." The book does not offer criticisms of Marxism, it just list supposed victims if communist regimes. And reliable source or not, no one takes it seriously. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It does, see the conclusion. Lots of people take it seriously and is a published academic work.

B - if reliable sources criticize Marx from a Weberian perspective, that could certainly go in. I'm not sure I've ever seen it put that way; usually, the two are presented as alternative approaches, but one approach is not necessarily held to give grounds for rejecting the other. But obviously I haven't seen everything that's been written on the subject.

D - the section on "Marx's predictions" was OR except for a brief mention of Popper. But the mention of Popper duplicated, in a less useful form, the information in the "Pseudo-science" section as it was. There may be reliable sources who have criticized specific Marxist predictions (rather than making a general philosphical claim like Poppers about the lack of predictive power of Marxism), in which case the section could be resurrected with material from those sources.

E - the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" section was entirely OR (being an interpretation of primary sources), and more significantly, didn't actually include a criticism of Marxism. Ultramarine's replacement, which refered to the Black Book, did include a criticism, but of Marxism's human rights record, not of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I tried to find reliable sources for a section on Marxism and human rights a little while ago, but couldn't find anything that seemed sufficiently notable and concise to refer to. I think such a section might be worthwhile if people can find good sources. I think there may be something on the topic in Norman Geras's work, which I'll try and find. The Black Book, as I understand it, is only tangentially about the relationship between Marxist ideology and human rights violations, but might be an OK source until we find something better. VoluntarySlave (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

B. Sources have been given who see Weber as an alternative explanation to the Marxist one.
E I will add specific material from the Black Book and other sources such as The Road to Serfdom.Ultramarine (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Another criticism of historical materialism is due to Max Stirner, who argued that the philosophy of Hegel (one of the most significant influences on historical materialism) leads to nihilism. Marx himself wrote a lengthy, heated response to Stirner in The German Ideology, although it was not published until well after Marx's death."

Another unexplained deletion. If no explanation is given I will restore it.Ultramarine (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals for section structure

The structure of the article is awful. It is completely illogical and each paragraph does not warrant a section of its own. May I make some suggestions for a logical and concise framework for the sections and the arguments which should be included in each which we can work towards:

  1. Historical Materialism - everything in there at present; section on Hegel and Max Stirner.
    • Ultramarine, Historical Materialism is more appropriate title for this section than Base and Superstructure. Base and superstructure describe Marx's view of the component pieces within society but historical materialism denotes both the structure of society and the way in which society changes. This is demonstrated by the fact that historical materialism has a much clearer and more comprehensive entry than base and superstructure.If we are to describe the theory itself within the article then including the terms as a section tite is superfluous.Supernoodles (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Implementation of Communism - inherent problems with the implementation of a communist state; anarchist criticisms of authoritarianism; Richard Pipes; Karl Popper; Violent proletarian revolution; Dictatorship of the proleteriat.
  2. Economic Criticisms - Marxian labor theory of value; Business cycle;
  3. Empirical and Epystemological Criticisms - Predictions of Marxism; Francis Fukuyama; Karl Popper.

There are three sections which should be deleted:

  • On the Jewish question - Marx was a non-practicing Jew himself. To claim that the import of On the Jewish question rests on anti-Semitism is a gross oversimplification and a complete misreading. Marx may have accepted the common stereotype of the time that Jews are inherently greedy. However, this was not the thrust of the essay. The essay marks a turning point from the ideological to the material within Marx's thinking and was a criticism of (Prussian) society itself. For Marx, the Jew was merely a special manifestation of what he calls 'civil society's Judaism' - i.e. that society in general is governed by greed and material interests. Furthermore, it is not the case that everything that Marx wrote constitutes Marxism. If we are to view everything Marx wrote as legitimate criticism, we could spend much time discussing how awful he was at writing poetry.[12] Anti-Semitism is in no way integral to Marxism as is demonstrated by the fact that it is not mention once in the (much larger) entry on Marxism itself. If you can find me a number of prominent Marxists, ultramarine, who argue this then I will give it more attention.
    • See the actual text. Is a defence againt critique of anti-semitism. Not only marxists can criticze Marxism.Ultramarine (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I did not say that non-Marxists couldn't criticise Marxism (although I can understand how you got this impression) as is evidenced by the fact that I did not propose the deletion of any other arguments by non-Marxists. In any case, that would leave for a very boring world. My point was that anti-semitism is not regarded by any Marxists - or non-Marxists for that matter - to be an inherent or integral part of Marxism nor is everything that Marx said part of Marxism. It is a straw man argument. As I said before, if we were to criticise everything that Marx said then we could criticise his awful poetry [13] or perhaps his writing style or maybe his analysis of the East India Company.[14] Please find me a Marxist author who believes that anti-semitism is integral to Marxism and I will reconsider whether it is an integral part of Marxism and thus is a valid criticism. Supernoodles (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Utopian socialism - This is a critique of what Marx wrote about the 'utopian socialist' and not of Marxism. Many of the same points I made about 'On the Jewish question' apply here - i.e. that it is not the case that everything that Marx wrote constitutes Marxism. The reason that Marx criticised the 'utopian socialists' was to define his theories negatively rather than positively. Again, please provide me with a prominent Marxist who feels that this is inherent within Marxism and I will reassess this. Supernoodles (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Not only marxists can criticze Marxism.
      • See above. Supernoodles (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Historicism - Reproduction of copyrighted material from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[15]

These sections have been deleted. Please provide arguments for inclusion here.Supernoodles (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ultramarine (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)