Talk:Marxism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Huenneke.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove far-left and left-wing adjectives from the first line

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". Enigma91 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the references you removed? Acroterion (talk) 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. 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. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Acroterion (talk) 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.

I say revert. 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. — Czello 07:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Left wing. 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. Enigma91 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What other articles do is irrelevant to how this article operates. — Czello 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removing the "left/far-left" label. Marxism is a method of analysis and a theory of history, not a political ideology. Magnetizedlion27 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It is overwhelmingly described as left wing by sources. — Czello 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GabeRoberto (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ruthwillbepresident, Ctucke22, Jrath1.

— Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Age-old confusions & The purpose of this article

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. 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 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 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.

DocHeuh (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. DocHeuh (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

–––Deleted. DocHeuh (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. DocHeuh (talk) 17:02, 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, this edit 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. DocHeuh (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)