Jump to content

Talk:Marxism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GuugWiki (talk | contribs)
29 edits
No edit summary
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|archive_age=40|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|subpage=Politics and economics|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Society and social sciences|anchor=Ideology and political theory (22 articles)|class=C}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Economics|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=high|sci=yes|hist=yes}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|importance=high|continental=yes|political=yes|ethics=yes|religion=yes}}
{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject China|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=high|sci=yes|hist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|continental=yes|political=yes|ethics=yes|religion=yes}}
}}
}}
{{Backwardscopy|author=Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F.|year=2010|title=Nicos Poulantzas: Political sociology, Marxism, structural Marxism, Leninism, Eurocommunism, social class, instrumentalism, cultural hegemony|org=Betascript Publishing|comments={{OCLC|642007342}}, {{ISBN|9786130348038}}.|bot=LivingBot}}
{{Backwardscopy|author=Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F.|year=2010|title=Nicos Poulantzas: Political sociology, Marxism, structural Marxism, Leninism, Eurocommunism, social class, instrumentalism, cultural hegemony|org=Betascript Publishing|comments={{OCLC|642007342}}, {{ISBN|9786130348038}}.|bot=LivingBot}}
Line 18: Line 22:
{{section sizes}}
{{section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archiveheader={{Talkarchivenav}}|maxarchivesize=100K|counter=4|minthreadsleft=3|algo=old(40d)|archive=Talk:Marxism/Archive %(counter)d}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archiveheader={{Talkarchivenav}}|maxarchivesize=100K|counter=4|minthreadsleft=3|algo=old(40d)|archive=Talk:Marxism/Archive %(counter)d}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Ideology#Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction|ideology]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction) [[Special:Diff/502440930|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction","appear":{"revid":4950246,"parentid":4950194,"timestamp":"2004-08-01T17:00:11Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction"]},"disappear":{"revid":502440930,"parentid":502440644,"timestamp":"2012-07-15T15:54:40Z","removed_section_titles":["Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction"],"added_section_titles":["Marxist view"]},"very_different":"46≥12","rename_to":"Marxist view"} -->
}}


⚫
== Making Clarifications and adding a section on Marx's ontology ==
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
⚫
:Hey everyone! I've read through the article and think that adding a section on Marx's ontology (and in particular his doctoral dissertation) could help frame some of the other concepts in the article. One point in particular is that it helps to clarify what exactly constitutes the "base" in the base-superstructure metaphor; namely, that it is nature.
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Northern_Arizona_University/Feminist_Theories_(Fall_2016)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Huenneke|Huenneke]].
⚫
:In addition to this I see that the lead has remained very much the same and still includes the political modifier before explaining a distinction between the 'theory' and 'applications'. I would like to try and rewrite it soon.
⚫
:Before making any changes to the article, I'll post them here, but I would also appreciate feedback for whether or not these changes are warranted or if there is a better place for them. [[User:GuugWiki|GuugWiki]] ([[User talk:GuugWiki|talk]]) 00:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


== Issue with the overview ==
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Remove far-left and left-wing adjectives from the first line ==


As it stands, the overview only seems to describe vulgar Marxism and is likely to be misleading. While I get the need for simplicity, it seems like a problem to offer as simple and uncontroversial something rejected by almost all contemporary Marxists (ie, economism / determinism). It seems to me that not the materialist conception of history but the analysis of capital & the production of surplus value should anchor this section. It’s both far more comprehensively presented by Marx and closer to something like the consensus view than the ever-controversial problems of base & superstructure, etc. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:3E00:38DE:301D:7EBF:245F:E498|2603:7000:3E00:38DE:301D:7EBF:245F:E498]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:3E00:38DE:301D:7EBF:245F:E498|talk]]) 02:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The far-left adjective makes a subjective assumption that does not conform to a neutral POV. In addition, how can a method of analysis be considered left-wing or right-wing in the first place? The history and origins of this method of analysis are left-wing, but we cannot consider the method itself to be. That would be like claiming the "scientific method is a left-wing method of analysis". [[User:Enigma91|Enigma91]] ([[User talk:Enigma91|talk]]) 23:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:Did you read the references you removed? '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 23:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
::Yes, the definitions in those references are incorrect.
::Reference (2): The definition on dictionary.com claims that Marxism is an ideology; however this Wiki itself already states that Marxism is "a method of socioeconomic analysis".
::Reference (3): This says communists have a "commitment to Marxism", which simply means that communists follow that method of analysis. That doesn't make the method itself left-wing or far-left as there is nothing in historical materialism with which we can make that claim. Another example is psychology which is defined as the study of mind and behavior: there are different schools of thought under psychology but it doesn't give the act of studying it any political flavor. Marxism is a specific method of analyzing and studying history and societies; the call to action based on the outcome of this study can be said to be left-wing or right-wing, but not the method of study itself. [[User:Enigma91|Enigma91]] ([[User talk:Enigma91|talk]]) 22:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
:::So, I guess you didn't read them. (1) is borked right now, must not have paid The Man for their hosting (2) "Radical left" is defined using Marxism as the example (3) "Contemporary far-left parties in Europe" are discussed in extensive detail. Your analysis or deconstruction isn't usable for content on Wikipedia. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC) '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
::::I've read the discussion here, and I've looked at the article a few times, and I prefer the version where the left and far left adjectives are used later in the paragraph and with respect to *political* tendencies. Marxism is a way of investigating reality. That is not where the left or right qualities apply.
::::As a marxist I consider my political leaning as left. It irks me to see marxism described as "left-wing" even though there are economic schools of thought I would call right-wing. I do have a sense though that the article is not fully neutral when it judges what I think of as a scientific approach as being politically skewed.
::::It is complex, as deciding what is or is not scientific itself is hotly debatable. Yet the criteria about what is scientific is not left or right wing leanings, even though there may be correlations.


== Is dialectal materialism and historical materialism the same thing? ==
::::I say revert. [[User:Waltzzz|Waltzzz]] ([[User talk:Waltzzz|talk]]) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Sources predominately call it left wing. It's not really at all deniable that Marxism is a left wing ideology. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 07:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Left wing. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::The Austrian School of economics has a predominantly right-wing perception. Yet that article ''doesn't'' say that the "Austrian school is a right-wing to far-right school of economic thought". If Marxism is labeled as left-wing, then Austrian School of economics and Chicago School of economics should be labeled as right-wing. [[User:Enigma91|Enigma91]] ([[User talk:Enigma91|talk]]) 21:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::What other articles do is irrelevant to how this article operates. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


>[...] It uses a [[Dialectical materialism|dialectical materialist]] interpretation of historical development, better known as [[historical materialism]], [...]
:I agree with removing the "left/far-left" label. Marxism is a method of analysis and a theory of history, not a political ideology. [[User:Magnetizedlion27|Magnetizedlion27]] ([[User talk:Magnetizedlion27|talk]]) 01:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
::It is overwhelmingly described as left wing by sources. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
:::I think the important distinction to make is between a materialist-marxist inquiry (the 'theory' which absolutely is neutral and is part of a much older tradition than a left-right division in political thought) and the political applications of the conclusions of these analyses.
:::To give more insight for the first point, Marx's ontology is inherited from authors like Lucretius, and is founded on the argument that, in order for us to be able to have senses and exist, the world must be made of material in flux, which "swerves" and folds in on itself. In his dissertation, Marx very thoroughly explains a pedetic dialectic which founds the rest of his work. He makes a few important claims: that matter does not move in any determinate manner, and that matter is fundamentally relational (beyond simple cause and effect). Moreso, while Marx obviously draws moral and political conclusions based on his analysis, the analysis itself is purely a "kritik" (examining the conditions for the existence of, e.g. capital, exploitation, etc.). There's a reason why marx himself said he wasn't whatever people thought a "marxist" was. '''' [[User:GuugWiki|GuugWiki]] ([[User talk:GuugWiki|talk]]) 23:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


This makes it sound like they mean the same thing. Yet they link to two different wikipedia articles. Should those two be merged, or should the above paragraph be clarified? --[[User:FIQ|FIQ]] ([[User talk:FIQ|talk]]) 17:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Tennessee/Political_Sociology_(Fall_2022) | assignments = [[User:GabeRoberto|GabeRoberto]] | reviewers = [[User:Ruthwillbepresident|Ruthwillbepresident]], [[User:Ctucke22|Ctucke22]], [[User:Jrath1|Jrath1]] | start_date = 2022-08-24 | end_date = 2022-12-17 }}


== Why is this article not locked and protected? ==
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:ImagineWorldPeace|ImagineWorldPeace]] ([[User talk:ImagineWorldPeace|talk]]) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)</span>


Marxism is subject to a lot of scrutiny, especially from Fascists and far right. Both the Far Right and the Far Left articles are locked and protected to prevent vandalism. I feel like this page probably gets a lot of that. [[Special:Contributions/184.98.31.51|184.98.31.51]] ([[User talk:184.98.31.51|talk]]) 06:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
== Age-old confusions & The purpose of this article ==


:It has [[WP:PC|pending changes]] enabled, which catches the vandalism. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 06:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
There has been a request by [[User:Beyond My Ken]] to bring this to discussion prior-to edit thus I will do so here. It appears an unresolved discussion occurred above at a previous time, with acknowledgment of the inappropriateness of the terminology.

The adjectives 'a left or far-left methodology' used in the first line of the article, characterising the Marxism as a mode of academic analysis with political bias is confused and misplaced. Critically, the editor who included these adjectives is confusing (as is often the case) Marxism as socioeconomic analysis (i.e. historical materialism) with Marxism as the collection of various opinionated political perspectives arising from the interpretation of the socioeconomic analysis with the same name (i.e. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_schools_of_thought| school of thought]). This is an exceptionally common confusion, but not one that should be made on Wikipedia of all sites.

It is my understanding that ''this'' article exists dedicated to Marxism as the mode of socioeconomic analysis (i.e. historical materialism); since a separate page exists dedicated to Marxism as a collection of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_schools_of_thought| schools of thought]); with links redirecting to schools of thought within the article itself. Should this article be intended to be an overview of Marxism as a whole (i.e. anything that might be referred to as such), encompassing both analysis and schools of thoughts then this should be stated; and moreover the adjectives used in the first line would still remain misinformed and fundamentally incorrect since are currently listed as adjectives for Historical Materialism - not the schools of thoughts. One might argue that Marxism (as a socioeconomic analysis and theory of historical materialism) ''should'' have its own dedicated page, given its influence on history, but I won't make that argument here.

To summarise, whatever the case these adjectives (while ‘correct’ for Marxism as a collection of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_schools_of_thought| schools of thought]) are misplaced on this article, thus should be removed. Moreover, there should be a discussion on '''what''' this article is (see latter paragraph) to decide if there is '''any''' place for such adjectives in the article at all.

[[user:Heuh0|Doc<span style="color:lightgreen">H</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:#0000FF">u</span>h]] ([[User talk:Heuh0|talk]]) 06:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll give this another week, and take an absence of response as no objections to a change. [[user:Heuh0|Doc<span style="color:lightgreen">H</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:#0000FF">u</span>h]] ([[User talk:Heuh0|talk]]) 15:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

–––Deleted. [[user:Heuh0|Doc<span style="color:lightgreen">H</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:#0000FF">u</span>h]] ([[User talk:Heuh0|talk]]) 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


==Continuation of DRN discussion concerning violation of WP: NPOV==
[[User: Czello]] One simply needs to review the edit history to recognise the consensus, with multiple users (including but not limited to) [[User:DrLeonardHMcCoy]], [[User: MaxWM7096]], [[User: Enigma91]], [[User: Granger Barnett]], [[User: WilliamThomas22]] over the last few months alone flagging violation of WP:NPOV. You yourself have repeatedly reverted many of these edits. The consensus is clear. Despite this (and the border-line vandalism of assigning political bias to an historical approach to analysis), I still opened a discussion (above) in the pursuit of proper discourse; despite your revision often being made with 24hrs of an edit, the discussion I opened went 3 months without a reply. I thus logically judged the discussion closed and made the edit. Re-opening the matter as you wish to requires discussion on this talk page - and should not be handled by making immediate reversal of edits which when proposed went unchallenged for over 3 months, nor edit-warring in the face of corrective action. [[user:Heuh0|Doc<span style="color:lightgreen">H</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:#0000FF">u</span>h]] ([[User talk:Heuh0|talk]]) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:The consensus evidently is not clear given that several editors have reverted the description, and several more below favour its inclusion. There is now a formal discussion open to settle this, let's leave it there. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 19:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

==Discussion of [[WP:NPOV]] in first line==
As per ongoing discussion, I will raise the issue officially (again) here to seek consensus.

This discussion concerns the proposal to suggest political bias to the use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (Marxism). Marxist school of thought (political philosophies arising from use of Marxism) may quite rightly be assigned political bias, however it is entirely inappropriate to define an historical and sociological approach (i.e. Marxism) as such. Assuming good faith [[WP: AGF]] one might assume the first line of the article appears from a frequent misunderstanding.

Tracing back the edit history, the edit to amend the first line to include political categorisation can be seen to be first made by an non-user (IP address only), to be then reverted by [[User:Lol1VNIO]] citing (correctly) a failure to adhere to [[WP: NPOV]]. At a later point this was added back in before being reverted again on 31/07/22 by [[User: Enigma91]] once again for violating a NPOV. Immediately following this [[User: Acroterion]] reverted the revision claiming an "undiscussed revision"; which of course was not true since the absence of political adjectives was the page's status quo. Despite it not being their responsibility to, [[User: Enigma91]] raised this in the discussion page; and as [[User: Czello]] noted, no clear consensus was reached during this discussion - meaning that the page should remain as its status quo i.e. absent of political description. Regardless this back and forth has continued since July, with passing users (e.g. [[User:DrLeonardHMcCoy]], [[User: MaxWM7096]], [[User: Enigma91]], [[User: Granger Barnett]], [[User: WilliamThomas22]]) noting and removing the improper description using political bias, immediately followed by reversions by almost exclusively by either [[User: Czello]] or [[User: Acroterion]].

I move to reach consensus and enable closure this matter (while clearly noting that the 'status quo' of this page is an absence of political adjectives; tracing back to when the [[WP: edit warring]] began on 31/07/22; thus a failure to reach clear consensus should ''maintain'' the absence of political adjectives no matter what the page looks like now or during this discussion). Please provide comments below.
[[user:Heuh0|Doc<span style="color:lightgreen">H</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:#0000FF">u</span>h]] ([[User talk:Heuh0|talk]]) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:"the proposal to suggest political bias to the use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (Marxism)" Not sure what that really means, but nobody responded to your comments in January and October, and there appears to be a moderate preference for "left wing" as opposed to "far-left-wing," with some debate concerning where that should go. In as few words as possible, what are you suggesting? Most of the edits you've cited were made as drive-by changes by editors with few contributions and no discussion or attempt to gain consensus. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 18:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::Re; your first comment the fact that you're "not sure what that really means" is precisely my point; and highlights a confusion between two distinct uses of the same term. My precise suggestion is that characterisation as "left" in nature is appropriate for use of one of these terms but not the other. Namely it is not suitable to describe Marx's use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (which is the academic theory called 'Marxism'), but is appropriate for a number of the political philosophies ("Marxist Schools of thought") emerging from application of the former (often mischaracterised as 'Marxism'). Please note the difference between the term as an ''noun'' i.e. 'Marxist' which may or may not be characterised as 'left-wing' and as ''verb'' 'Marxism' which is appropriate to be categorised with political descriptors. [[user:Heuh0|Doc<span style="color:lightgreen">H</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:#0000FF">u</span>h]] ([[User talk:Heuh0|talk]]) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

:{{ec}}To be clear on the change you're suggesting, this discussion is aiming to remove "left-wing to far-left" from the lead, correct? In which case I'd ask why it would not be neutral to describe the "method of socioeconomic analysis" (as the article words it) as left-wing, particularly when it is well sourced? (Side note, though this isn't an official RFC I have notified [[WP:PLT]] of this thread for their input). — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::Here from WP:PLT. I also don't see what the issue is here. Marxism—whether the context is political, economic, or sociological—is widely agreed to be left-wing or far-left, and I don't know if I've ever seen a reliable source that says it isn't either of those things. Describing Marxism as far-left isn't any different than describing fascism as far-right. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 18:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, agree entirely. It's well-sourced and I think it's frankly a [[WP:FRINGE]] view to suggest it's not left-wing/far-left. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|Heuh0}}, it appears you've been posting messages on the talk pages of users that support your version of the article. I'd like to remind you of the Wikipedia behavioral guideline on [[WP:CANVASSING]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::: Also from WP:PLT. I generally agree with [[user:Heuh0|Doc<span style="color:lightgreen">H</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:#0000FF">u</span>h]] that the method of analysis, which can be used by followers of any polictical ideology and the various political ideologies influenced by Marx, which are left-wing, should be seperated. I would suggest to just re-write the lead, so that it refers to both, the method and the broadly left-wing ideologies. [[User:Icarusatthesun|ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼]] ([[User talk:Icarusatthesun|talk]]). 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::As per my reply to [[User: Acroterion]]; I think this suggestion is a sensible common ground. My issue lies only with the clear lack of sensitivity to the two separate uses of the term (one academic and one political). [[Marxist schools of thought]] does have its own page, thus I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the intention for this page was for Marxism (as the academic theory) thus being inappropriate for political characterisation. Should this page instead be intended to represent all (including often mischaracterised) uses of ''"Marxism"'', I see no problem. But critically, this should be made immediately clear to prevent misleading readers. [[user:Heuh0|Doc<span style="color:lightgreen">H</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:#0000FF">u</span>h]] ([[User talk:Heuh0|talk]]) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:The reason for my original change back in July is that having the "left / far-left" be the first words describing Marxist ideology appears incredibly misleading and inaccurate. As evidence by my change at the time, while I do not feel indicating such an association between Marxism and political affiliations is inherently incorrect, having its position in the opening paragraph (let alone the first descriptor) is a mistake. Assigning such a designation does go against Wikipedia's pursuit of neutrality as others have pointed out. I further find the claims of "well-sourced" debatable and the terms themselves of minimal informative value given the lack of a standardized definition.
:Political leanings, given the inherent variability and transient nature of the meaning "left/right-wing" on a historical and contemporary level, make such a descriptor a function of opinion and not of a real inherent fact to Marxism (or any ideology described as such). Political "leanings" are seemingly only assignable after the fact and very relative to the location and time of the political scenario in question. The first [https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/e.html cited source] does show association of Marxism and the political left ''of its time''. But does left/far-left politics of 1871 France hold the same meaning as today? What are the tenants of left/right affiliations in 1870s France? What are they even now? The [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/radical-left second source] doesn't say. It only uses Marxism and Maoism as frequent, but not exclusive examples, of whatever "radical-left" means. At best this highlights the contemporary association of the concepts. Wikipedia's own article on [[Far-left politics#Definition|far left politics]] struggles to define it concretely, and for good reason. Its only mention of Marxism is regarding its association of the term in political news media and nothing else. The [https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ipg/ipg-2009-1/10_a_march_us.pdf third source] highlights contemporary definitions of far-left and extreme-left in Europe, but again it's contemporary and in the context of Europe. Is far-left, left, right, etc in Europe the same everywhere else? Not relative to the United States and almost assuredly not to many other countries. I suspect a decent variance in such terms exists within Europe itself. This source also discusses how such left leaning groups have changed in the last ~50 years (at the time of writing). So the author, from an ethnocentric perspective, describes modern left/far-left is different than what was in the previously.
:Rather ironically, it would seem those citing the first source neglected reading near the beginning in which it also states: "...an objective view of what is right and left is obscure". It's a great point, because it is obscure. We are using this label from what loose contemporary social understanding exists regarding the meaning of these terms. I feel the few supporting keeping the "left/far-left" descriptor are failing to separate modern political discourse to what actually defines something (in this case Marxism). We can remove left/far-left descriptor from the page and nothing about Marxism is lost. What does it even mean? It's not a rhetorical question but rather highlights my point. Thebigguyalien mentions that Marxism being far left is the same as fascism being described far right. But again, these terms are so nebulous with very ephemeral meanings. I could ''easily'' make the case that US conservative politics is "on the right". Conservative politics of today, among other things, would seem to heavily emphasize minimal government involvement and oversight. Yet fascism is probably the best definition of maximal government oversight/involvement, but is also far-right? Is right/far-right politics defined by minimal government oversight or heavy? What is either side defined by?
:I belabor this to not define political leanings, but rather highlight their near non-existent utility in defining Marxism (or really anything for that matter). Such subjectivity has no place in the pursuit of an objective detailing of any concept. The sources cited, when they are not actually highlighting the unestablished meanings of these terms, only serve to show a contemporary association of the concepts from ''maybe'' a western perspective? That's why I would prefer to revert to the time when the "left/far-left" descriptor was absent entirely. It seems to only confuse the subject and adds nothing to what Marxism is. I also think a variation of my previous edit would be adequate. That version put it at the end of the opening paragraph stating that Marxism is ''associated'' with some modern political concepts of "left/far-left". This importantly delineates the actual concept from modern political discourse and shows only that the two are sometimes associated, but not inherently tied together. [[User:DrLeonardHMcCoy|DrLeonardHMcCoy]] ([[User talk:DrLeonardHMcCoy|talk]]) 01:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

⚫
== Making Clarifications and adding a section on Marx's ontology ==
⚫
:Hey everyone! I've read through the article and think that adding a section on Marx's ontology (and in particular his doctoral dissertation) could help frame some of the other concepts in the article. One point in particular is that it helps to clarify what exactly constitutes the "base" in the base-superstructure metaphor; namely, that it is nature.
⚫
:In addition to this I see that the lead has remained very much the same and still includes the political modifier before explaining a distinction between the 'theory' and 'applications'. I would like to try and rewrite it soon.
⚫
:Before making any changes to the article, I'll post them here, but I would also appreciate feedback for whether or not these changes are warranted or if there is a better place for them. Thanks! ''''

Latest revision as of 06:59, 18 September 2024

Making Clarifications and adding a section on Marx's ontology

[edit]
Hey everyone! I've read through the article and think that adding a section on Marx's ontology (and in particular his doctoral dissertation) could help frame some of the other concepts in the article. One point in particular is that it helps to clarify what exactly constitutes the "base" in the base-superstructure metaphor; namely, that it is nature.
In addition to this I see that the lead has remained very much the same and still includes the political modifier before explaining a distinction between the 'theory' and 'applications'. I would like to try and rewrite it soon.
Before making any changes to the article, I'll post them here, but I would also appreciate feedback for whether or not these changes are warranted or if there is a better place for them. GuugWiki (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the overview

[edit]

As it stands, the overview only seems to describe vulgar Marxism and is likely to be misleading. While I get the need for simplicity, it seems like a problem to offer as simple and uncontroversial something rejected by almost all contemporary Marxists (ie, economism / determinism). It seems to me that not the materialist conception of history but the analysis of capital & the production of surplus value should anchor this section. It’s both far more comprehensively presented by Marx and closer to something like the consensus view than the ever-controversial problems of base & superstructure, etc. 2603:7000:3E00:38DE:301D:7EBF:245F:E498 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is dialectal materialism and historical materialism the same thing?

[edit]

>[...] It uses a dialectical materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, [...]

This makes it sound like they mean the same thing. Yet they link to two different wikipedia articles. Should those two be merged, or should the above paragraph be clarified? --FIQ (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article not locked and protected?

[edit]

Marxism is subject to a lot of scrutiny, especially from Fascists and far right. Both the Far Right and the Far Left articles are locked and protected to prevent vandalism. I feel like this page probably gets a lot of that. 184.98.31.51 (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has pending changes enabled, which catches the vandalism. — Czello (music) 06:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marxism&oldid=1246321447"