Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Karl Marx

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



Personal life section[edit]

Why is it here? What is the missional value of dedicating a whole section with multiple subsections to his private affairs, when our propose here is to debunk his ideology (with some background to help you understand it).-Flandres (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

From my understanding the second paragraph seems written with the intent to setup and underline that Marx wasn't a particularly hard worker, which somewhat underlines the hypocrisy in his ideology putting forward the idea that people will just be a hard worker for each other and his relationship with his parents showing that he isn't above being extremely petty, which seems weird again with how heavily his own ideology underlines cooperation. The part about his ancestry is merely used to explain why cranks like tying Marxism into Jewish Global Conspiracy theories. YMMV on missionality, the part about his ancestry seems relevant to me, you can argue that the couch potato and parental relationship is a cheap dunk. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept the ancestry section on that basis...but the later two still seem "petty" in their own right. Like, if it were an off hand line in another section that would be okay, but having sections all their own just doesn't seem to further our goal in analyzing him. I was thinking about removing them...but I wanted to hear arguments like yours (which convinced to keep the ancestry one) because I know almost better than anyone how passionate people can get about this article.-Flandres (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how that even "underlines hypocrisy", unless there's some an inherent conflict between not working and disliking conditions under capitalism, unless whoever wrote that seems to think he was some kind of Stakhanovite decades before that was even a thing. --Invare (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Would Marx support Bernie Or Bust?[edit]

The answer is that Marx would only support voting for a worker's party, and seeing how the democratic party isn't one by any socialist's definition, he'd advocate forming a worker's party and campaigning on that party without any compromise. He'd probably advocate campaigning for the British labor party under Corbyn or pre-Blair or maybe Die Linke, but never for a party like the DNC.'Legionwhat do you want from me 00:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This article was written by politically illiterate rubes for the most part, so don't hold your breath. Oxyaena Harass 01:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Sanders wouldn't be sufficiently radical enough for Marx.Yakikako (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Did Marx even participate in elections? --BON — Unsigned, by: 168.91.2.97 / talk
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
(EC)Do the congresses of the IWA count? GeeJayK (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
[EC]He didn’t really participate in any political activity other than writing. He may have aligned himself with groups that participated in elections, but those groups would need to actually be fighting against capitalism or feudalism (so he wouldn’t “support” Bernie or Corbyn or any mainstream, modern western politician). Even then he didn’t put much stock in them, in his view an election under capitalism would always favour capitalist interests. Christopher (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Marx's racism?[edit]

Seriously? I think this website has to be better than the DailyWires of the world. Right? Am I wrong? Amarty (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That’s not much of a conversation starter, what do you think the section gets wrong? Christopher (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Marx wasn't racist. He supported anti-colonial movements in the world. Amarty (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
If you want to convince anyone, you need to address the examples in the section. Claim they’re taking out of context or something. Christopher (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC) You can do both. Marx was an European born in the XIXth century. Pretty much everyone was a racist back then. Churchill was also a racist, and that doesn't diminish his merits. I agree that the section is longer than it should be though. GeeJayK (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
All it does really is grasping at straws. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why? This just reads like a hit piece on one of the greatest western philosophers. Why have it in the first place? PS: What is an "edit conflict"??? Is that some sort of war on this website? Amarty (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Amarty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_conflict MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Who are you talking to on this last post? About Edit Conflict, here: RationalWiki:Newcomers#Editing.— Unsigned, by: GeeJayK / talk / contribs
Because he was a racist. This website is about pseudoscience, bigotry and woo, not a bunch of puff pieces. If the guy is an asshole, we'll document it. Corm (pester) 18:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This section is quite literally "reverse whitwashing", it serves no purpose other than make Marx seem worse than he is. I suggest to remove it entirely. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Amarty (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The section is problematic, I agree. But why should it be removed? GeeJayK (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It adds nothing substantiative to the article, it simply exists as a list of goofs when they were normalized back then. All it does is discredit Marx's accomplishments for no good reason. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
No. Erasing uncomfortable facts is Orwellian. Corm (pester) 18:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
As I said, I belive the section has many problems, but should we erase the racist sections on the Winston Churchill article? How about deleting the category racists on the Zachary Taylor article? GeeJayK (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Churchill advocated for racism and he was a capitalist. Marx advocated for a system that abolishes racism (ideally, that is). Amarty (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

"Our heroes did good, ergo we should ignore any problems they had! Your heroes said something nasty on Twitter when they were 15 and should be cancelled!!!" Corm (pester) 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why are you being so hostile? Amarty (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

[EC]IIRC “on the Jewish question” is about how anyone, Jew or gentile, can “be a Jew” in the sense of embodying antisemitic stereotypes, and how it’s capitalism not Judaism which is the root cause of such behaviour. It’s not politically correct, but hardly damning for a man who’s been dead for 100 years. The other examples are harder to dismiss. Christopher (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Christopher do you believe capitalism inherently necessitates things like racism, considering the profit motive? Amarty (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC) @Amarty It's called hypocrisy. John Locke advocated for a system where everyone is equal, but he didn't believe that atheists had these rights. GeeJayK (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see why a sociopath would be racist/sexist. Refusing to rent an apartment to someone who is willing to pay you isn't just racist, it's poor business sense. Refusing to let Black people into your school reduces the overall quality of potential students and your school loses prestige in the long term. Bigotry is a human failing, not an economic one. Corm (pester) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC) The best argument in my opinion is that he was just reproducing views that were common in the XIXth century. Everything else so far sounds like whitewashing. GeeJayK (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, why did we remove the part about Marx's hygiene and whatnot? The man was a hypocrite; extolled the virtues of the working class while mooching off of others, real working class Joes would've utterly despised the man. Corm (pester) 18:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Cory, commenting about perceived hypocrisy in his personal life does not further the main aspect of our mission-critiquing his bunk ideology.-Flandres (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)-Flandres (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I get that liberals don't like Marx, but those attacks are just defamatory. Amarty (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It's only defamation if it isn't true. Corm (pester) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll say it again. The section has many problems and ignores the historical background. But I don't see it's defamatory, unless you think someone cannot be a racist just because he believed in a system that everyone is equal. Marx didn't have the access of the modern biology and sociology, I agree. But that doesn't mean he wasn't racist (albeit, I'll repeat, the section should be re-written). GeeJayK (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. At most the section should be re-written, because his bigotry did in fact contribute to his worldview. On the other hand we should put it in temporal context.-Flandres (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just for context, the section in question was added by Raven. Oxyaena Harass 18:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Funny, I was checking it right now. I also thought it was him (I spent most of the last night correcting an absurd mistake he made on the Social democracy article. But in fact it was written by Neiltyson1fan. Sorry, Oxy, it was one of your friends this time. GeeJayK (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe it was started by raven, and Neil added a lot to it afterward.-Flandres (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You're both wrong. A section on Marx' racist behavior already existed. Raven then tried to expand on it in the usual way that Raven did. Neiltyson1fan came quite a bit after. Personally, I think that whilst Marx wasn't particularly extremely racist compared for his time, one can fairly likely point to the fact that present day Marxists aren't above often being massive racists themselves when it hits convenient (the anti-idpol crowd) will likely feel their opinions are very validated by Marx' more contemporary racism. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is this relevant to Marx, tho? Guy said some common stuff for his time. Not worth cluttering half his page with that. Amarty (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Because it DID influence his work. Take the Asiatic mode of production for instance.-Flandres (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Why are most Marxists opposed to racism then? Amarty (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Because people in a movement NEVER have differing opinions from its founder...-Flandres (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Why are you removing anything I am adding to the page? Amarty (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You should wait until the discussion here has concluded before editing the page. Having “anti-racism” as a pro when we’ve got a whole section about he was a racist is incoherent, and Marx wasn’t an anti-fascist as he died before fascism existed. Christopher (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(EC)You added only two things, one of which credits him for opposition to an ideology that did not exist until decades after he died.-Flandres (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
But it says "fucking tankies", when tankies didn't exist until very much after his death? Amarty (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
But tankies at least on paper revere his words and do these actions in the name of fulfilling his dream. There are numerous sources of Anti-fascism and Anti-racism completely unrelated to Marx so saying that is part of his legacy is absurd.-Flandres (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Tankies are a direct subproduct of Marxism. Anti-fascism doesn't have anything to do with Marxism, unless if you think Fascism was only created as a reaction to the rise of the communist parties... GeeJayK (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see how ad-hominems debunk any ideology. Like, Adam Smith thought landlords were bad so that means liberalism is debunked? — Unsigned, by: 168.91.2.97 / talk / contribs

"Marx the anti-semite"[edit]

Marx was Jewish, and why only have a section on Marx's problems and not, say, the problems of Darwin? This site defends the bigotry of Darwin, but unreasonably castigates the bigotry (real and/or perceived) of Marx. Why the double standard? Spot (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If you scroll through the fossil record, there's a pretty storied history of why it's like that. I think we should absolutely address Marx's bigotry, but it's undeniably overkill. I'm considering re-writing that section and just cutting down the length and excerpts. Completely unnecessary. Monochroma (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Given the immense controversy of that section, I feel like the edit I just made was justified. I changed very little of the actual content, but reduced the overall length of the section, including excessive blockquotes (really, do we need to expose people to that kind of vitriol to get the point across?) and some minor rewording. Monochroma (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was removing excessive block quotes[edit]

My edit was reversed, claiming I removed "most of the article." I think this is false. The content of the article upon removing the block quotes was almost *entirely the same*. I think there is absolutely no reason that we should put these quotes on display, counting up every single vile thing the man said. We can summarize them and offer analysis, but I think it's plainly stupid to leave it as it was.

Further, this single section, "Marx's contemporary bigotry", has been a constant source of debate and vitriol on this page. My edit attempted to offer a location to discuss the bigotry of Karl Marx without completely dominating the article, and exposing people to hateful speech. If people would like to discuss that or edit it, I'm cool with that. But we've been waiting for an improvement on this section for years. I'm rolling it back. Monochroma (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)