Talk:Karl Marx

Marx and his influence on economics
This is grossly innacurate. The only Marxian economist on RePec that I'm aware is Paul Roemer. Even fringe economists like Ludwig von Mises have a bigger impact to the economic thought. Many ideas from the XIXth century are still relevant for the economic thought today, just to name a few:


 * Comparative advantages - David Ricardo
 * General equilibrium - Léon Walras
 * Price elasticity - Alfred Marshall
 * Marginal utility - William Stanley Jevons
 * Marginal productivity - John Bates Clarke

All these ideas are still part of the economic science today, and many Nobel Memorial Prize laureates built their theories upon them, like the with the general equilibrium and the  and the comparative advantages.

Which Marxian idea is still in vogue today? None. Sure, Marx was relevant to political movements, but that doesn't make him influential on the academic/theoretical field of economics.. I'll remove this passage if no one disagrees with me. GeeJayK (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean, yeah, if you're looking at mainstream economics, Marx's work isn't influential at all. But there is an entire subsect of economics that is dedicated just to building off of his work. I'm not under the illusion that his work is widely accepted outside of that, but to assert that Marx isn't influential on any field of economics is to just ignore an entire heterodox school, especially when there's a burgeoning interest in Marxian economics now, too. I don't really get your point, either. It's not like there's a huge scrawl on this page about how Marx changed economics forever. It says he's a deeply influential economist. That's all. Not on the merits of his theories, just that he is influential. Which he unquestionably is. Is he Adam Smith? No. But it's hard to ignore the marks Marx left on the world. Monochroma (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can also make the argument that besides the minority of economists who specialize in Marxian economics a considerable amount of that right libertarian tradition in economics is active reaction to Marxist and socialist thought more broadly and so denotes another means of Marx’s impact. To influence a field is not necessarily to be widely accepted by it. Freud was influential to psychology but his theories are widely rejected. I wish people gave marxian economics a bit more attention though. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I've heard the argument that Keynesianism, no doubt particularly major, grew from dissatisfaction with Marxian, Austrian School, and mainstream economics. Though I admit I am not well versed in economics at all. Regardless, I'd be open to rephrasing of whatever particular passage this is referring to but I think the key assertion is pretty off here. Marx is profoundly influential, no matter how you slice it. Maybe the OP would prefer "political philosopher"? "Godfather of political economy and socioeconomics?" Not sure. Monochroma (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Racism and double standards
This article goes out of its way to demonize Marx for his typical 19th century racism, while the article on Darwin goes out of its way to apologize for Darwin's typical 19th century racism (apologize in the classical sense: "in defense of"). Judging from the talk page history, I'm not the first one to notice this. If we are going to hold influential 19th century thinkers accountable for their bigotry, we should at least be consistent in doing so. Vee (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference is that we had an edit war on this page in the past because a now banned user insisted we covered it in the laziest cheap dunk fashion possible (and another banned user insisted we didn't) before we cut the gordian knot by putting none of their versions on the page. I do think there is specific merit to covering Marx' racism in a negative light whilst being neutral-ish on Darwin. Darwins racism is not exactly well known about the man, nor does his legacy really encompass much of his racism. By contrast, Marx' at best lack of care about how he perceived race back in the day is still having some very negative effects to this day (it's arguably the ground root for class reductionism). Just my 0.02 as to why our pages cover these two individual thinkers differently. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Marx was also very Orientalist. Did you know he excused the atrocities of the British Empire in India simply because "the Brits were introducing private property to India which previously had none." This is because Marx views capitalism as the predecessor to socialism, which coincidentally just so happens to be rooted in the developmental history of Europe, which Marx generalizes to cover the entire world. Marx, for all his genius, was ironically enough a very Eurocentric thinker. Vee (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Marx's sociological and political work were more important IMO than his economic work
Although a lot of his work in sociology does cover the interplay between sociology and economics. Marx covers the economic aspects of class struggle, gender, imperialism and whatnot and how they all play into the wider socioeconomic system of capitalism which other economists of the time didn't (and to this day still downplay and ignore somewhat). Vee (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Granted there were other thinkers roughly contemporaneous to Marx who covered these subjects and aspects too, but regardless of their individual merits they were not as influential as Marx was, for better and/or for worse. Vee (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

fine we can exclude the last thing I added
Not much outcry to put it back in 2600:4040:403C:F300:D5CA:1F44:A6A5:C908 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can make an account, you know. Vee (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with quoting Paul Johnson?
Why remove the Paul Johnson argument? Sure, the dude sucks, but his argument holds water. -- Monochroma (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how recognizing the problems with the class society inherent with capitalism is "antisemitic" in anyway. Vee (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the argument Johnson makes. Johnson makes the argument that Marx's writing on Jews extrapolates the Jewish identity into a political class, the bourgeoisie, which is antisemitic. Monochroma (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Marxist theory sets out a strict set of critera for what the bourgeoisie is, and "being Jewish" isn't one of them. Marx's antisemitism has about as much relevance to Marxist theory on class as Darwin's racism has on the theory of evolution. Vee (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't want to poison the well here, but there are better sources to cover Marx antisemitism. Like the guy himself. Paul Johnson is not a reliable source and I don't trust his analysis. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what's wrong with Johnson's analysis? How does it misrepresent or misconstrue Marx's work? I'm not asking rhetorically. What specifically makes his argument so wildly flawed that it must be omitted? Marx states explicitly in his essay "On The Jewish Question" that "an organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible". Johnson argues that this sentiment positions Jews as members of a ruling class. What is specifically wrong with this argument? Monochroma (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is an accurate interpretation. It still an antisemitic statement but the meaning of the word "huckster" does not imply ruling class, or even business owner. Like being a salesmen would make you a huckster but being a salesperson does not necessarily mean you own the means of the productions or even the company to which you are selling items for. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be said that Paul Johnson himself is very right wing and identifies as intensely anticommunist. That presents a motivation to why he would want to paint not just Marx but his entire class analysis of communism in a bad light. "Extrapolating"  jewish people as the bourgeoisie is on the face of things absurd, so much so that it sort of undermines the credibility of Johnson claims as a whole. It also itself has an implicit antisemitisim as interpretation as it assumes business/factory owner = Jew. No where in Marx's writings does he tie jewishness to being bourgeoise. There is no explicit reference whatsoever that the bourgois be seen as jewish. You have to defaultly assume a connection between the bourgeoisie and jewish people to read that into Marx. It's actually incredibly controversial among academics whether or not "On the Jewish Question" is antisemtic or not.  I am inclined to say that it is, but it's tangential to Marx's overall project in the analysis of capitalism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not defending Johnson. He seems like a fool. And I agree, his anti-semitism has nothing to do with Marx's political theories. But the section is not about Marx's political theories. It's about his bigotries. And frankly, I'm deeply uncomfortable only having a statement saying "well it could have been satire!" and not anything that criticizes the text. The quote I have just posted is a direct quote from Marx's writing. I guess I'm sorry I said "bourgeoisie" (because he's not explicitly stating that the Jews own means of production) instead of some other term, but the text is pretty overt in my view. Here are more direct quotes from the text: "The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general." "Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist." "The contradiction that exists between the practical political power of the Jew and his political rights is the contradiction between politics and the power of money in general. Although theoretically the former is superior to the latter, in actual fact politics has become the serf of financial power." I struggle to see how this is "reading into it". Is Marx not explicitly stating that Jews control financial instruments here? Is that not a form of ruling class? If not, what is it, and what is he saying, then? -- Monochroma (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * iirc the reference to Johnson was specific to the entire political analysis from Marx as a whole being antisemetic. It also seems a bit disingenuous to state you are not defending Johnson when the prompt for this section is questioning the decision to remove references to him. There is significant mention to Marx's bigotry in his article, though there is mention that some scholars take the comments from within "On the Jewish Question" as a being satirical that does not mean our article is endorsing the work as satirical. Personally I am going to remove such comments because in the earliest reference to the work being satirical cites wikipedia when wikipedia makes no mention of a interpretation of the work being satirical. You asked about Johnson's analysis specifically, not whether or not Marx himself can be factually said to be antisemetic. I think though in your selected quotes you may want to focus on the word "serf".  Recall a serf is a kind of agricultural labourer bound to the feudal system. If someone is a "serf" to the financial system, then they are arguably an exploited worker within that system. Historically this isn't entirely unjustifiable given that due to christian discrimination and their refusal to handle loans, etc. This pushed a lot of Jewish people into the financial sector because they couldn't work anywhere else. Does that mean that the statements are not antisemetic? No. Given historical developments and at the time there existing no laws for employment discrimination this over-representation of  jewish people in this particular aspect of the economy was especially likely for the time. There isn't necessarily financial power as members of the ruling class being ascribed to jewish people here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He doesn't say Jews are serfs, he says politics is a serf to money, immediately after saying Jews have practical power over politics.
 * No, I'm not defending Johnson. I am asking what's so wrong with his arguments that they must be omitted from even being mentioned. Him being a right-wing cretin doesn't mean he can't be correct here. I don't agree with Johnson's thesis, but I think his argument is coherent and should be taken seriously. That is why I am highlighting statements from Marx's writing which directly support Johnson's claim.
 * Whatever. I'm done with this argument. Monochroma (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh fuck right. lol re-read that line. I am editing at work so I have to be quick on the draw. I read and write under rushed circumstances, my bad.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the most controversial part of the discussion is Johnson. I believe that the point will be better received if you find a source that is not him. Since academics are still discussing whether the text was a satire or not, I think we shouldn't take either side on the debate and cover both of them. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Marx and Sci-fi is a bad section
I think we ought to remove the "Marx and Sci-Fi" section. If anything, it should be on the communism page or something. But it honestly more just reads like one random editor's musings based on cursory understandings of Marx's writing, and it seems totally out of place. Some of the other sections aren't great but are at least about valuable subject matter. This just seems silly. Monochroma (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one of those pages where the writers/editors/admins know pretty much nothing about the subject but just think it's useful/trendy to support or something 2600:4040:4032:FF00:81A7:DF8D:AA71:50AE (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)