Talk:Karl Marx
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This Communism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
What's wrong with quoting Paul Johnson?[edit]
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
@Monochroma 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[edit]
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)
Marx on slavery[edit]
I have not read the entirety of the work that it is citing, but I have read through the section, and I get the impression that the allegation that Marx is sympathizing with slavery is quote-mining. The full quotes come from the "fourth observation" in The Poverty of Philosophy Chapter 2. To me, it seems less that Marx is defending slavery and more highlighting the failure of Proudhon to properly address the problem of slavery because of the entanglement "the good and the bad." He is arguing that Proudhon's perspective is not sufficiently dialectical and thus does not succeed.
You can read the full section on the page, but let me point this out (with some paragraphs smushed together to be less big), the two sections flanking the quoted passages:
“”For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides – one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm. The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category. The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad.
... Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples. Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World. What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad. Hegel has no problems to formulate. He has only dialectics. M. Proudhon has nothing of Hegel's dialectics but the language. For him the dialectic movement is the dogmatic distinction between good and bad. |
Regardless if you agree with the whole dialectic stuff, it seems to be ultimately against slavery, because it is arguing that Proudhon's assessment of slavery does not account for the integration of slavery in the economic institutions (and thus, "the good side") of the US, instead viewing it as a blemish to be removed. I'm open to alternative critiques, but this appears to be a gross misrepresentation of Marx's argument. I'm removing it for the time being. Monochroma (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that quote-mining is frequent among people trying to present Marx as a bigot. The thing is he kind of was prejudiced by today's standards. But I think people way overstate it. I don't think he was really antisemitic either for instance (currently I adopt the view he was being sarcastic in "On The Jewish Question"). If I remember right, he did make comments supporting imperialism against the indigenous people of the Americas. One of the most clownish instances of quote-mining Marx I have ever seen pasted together two sentence fragments from completely separate works, robbed of all necessary context, to make it sound like they wanted to cause a "revolutionary world-holocaust" exterminating different races. Chillpilled (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Mass reversion[edit]
@FirmlyGraspIt Can you explain your sudden reversion? You didn't add an editorial note. You just blanked the text with details of Marx's life and some key elements of his philosophy. Carthage (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was just trying to look at what was removed I’m not sure what I pressed that reverted it! FirmlyGraspIt (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah. Carthage (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- FGI must have accidentally clicked the “rollback X edits” button, which immediately reverts the most recent edit/consecutive edits by the previous editor without opening the editor or allowing you to give them a rationale. Happened to me a few times when I was new on here. --Goatspeed. Stop the War On Secularism🎄CircularR
asoning🎄See what I've been messing around with 18:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- FGI must have accidentally clicked the “rollback X edits” button, which immediately reverts the most recent edit/consecutive edits by the previous editor without opening the editor or allowing you to give them a rationale. Happened to me a few times when I was new on here. --Goatspeed. Stop the War On Secularism🎄CircularR
- Ah. Carthage (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Capitalism isn't the same?[edit]
@Techpriest It's evolved, certainly, but the fundamental exploitative relationships remain the same, and a lot of the harsher elements of capitalism just get exported to the Global South. You may hear of it euphemistically referred to as "cheap labor." That's because those countries have weak, or no, protections for labor. Carthage (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Global North now sees the rise of the precariat.
That wasn't really a thing in Marx's day (think the 'gig economy" as an example of this). Although there are still definitely facets of the less sanitized system still in place. American agriculture heavily uses undocumented labor, and the conditions there are absolutely atrocious. Unlike American citizens they can't strike or unionize, if they do they'll get deported. Union busting is still a thing too. Carthage (talk)
- Marx was generally writing about the state of capitalism during the industrial revolution; Marx assumed that this contradiction (which was much more extreme at the time - the mindset was literally "for you, 10 others") would eventually lead to a revolution. This is... not how capitalism evolved. To put it in Marx' terms; the bourgeoisie got smarter. Even in those "cheap labor" countries, the rich don't sully their hands directly - they subcontract that stuff out. Middlemen, subsidiaries. Place as many (local) pawns as possible between them and the actual abuses. When something goes out, knock one pawn down, it won't affect the entire thing. In the richer countries, they learned to not abuse their workers to the point of desperation anymore because they can't get away with it (and no, I don't count the US as a rich country in this metric). People don't revolt, much less start a revolution (which remember, means going against the people with guns) unless they're desperate and have literally no other choices. The tenet that it will happen is proven false by the fact that we're ~180 years or so down the line and said prediction of a revolution still hasn't happened yet. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I get what you mean now. Carthage (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- The very opening paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto alludes briefly to a different possible outcome than a revolutionary transformation of society: "the common ruin of the contending classes". A worst-case climate scenario (sped ahead by profit-chasing; to be clear, I think we're more likely to see something between worst-case and best-case, which still isn't good but it's probably not apocalyptic) might destroy enough industrial productivity to meet this idea. Chillpilled (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Systems collapse does not require a complete collapse, just a general degradation compared to what came before. (Generally speaking, imagine someone in Rome in, say, 500 CE talking with a person who remembered the empire and suddenly realizing that things that seem normal to them were very different when this hypothetical old person was young.) The effects also will obviously vary by region and demographic. The billionaires will probably be much less effected by climate change then the poor or people in the global south, although again it will vary. Carthage (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I actually don't even know if Marx/Engels were intentionally acknowledging mutual ruin as a possible outcome of this class struggle. But the fact they acknowledged it as a possible outcome to historical class struggles, makes me think they at least should have realized that was a possible outcome here too. But then, they lived in a different time. I'm not sure how they would practically relate to that outcome other than maybe some sort of massive series of wars devastating industrial output or maybe some kind of Luddite-ism doing so. Not sure they had much concept that profit-chasing could cause an ecological disaster on this scale. Though I'm sure they may have known that exploitable natural resources were finite. Chillpilled (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, we can also see this effect today honestly. Ask anyone in the health profession and they'll tell you that the pandemic has left lasting damage. There're also a lot more mass shootings than there were just 15 years ago. Robert Evans (he might actually make a good article considering he covers a lot of the same shit we do), conflict journalist and podcaster, calls this "the crumbles," where instead of collapse being sudden and explosive, things just gradually, inexorably, fall to shit, and what's actually the process of systems decay just seems normal. Carthage (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Could we perhaps agree on "was/is"? This is a very semantic edit to be debating over. We live under capitalism now, even if it's a different form, so the phrasing of "capitalism was unstable" sounds awkward. It's pretty silly.Monochroma (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, we can also see this effect today honestly. Ask anyone in the health profession and they'll tell you that the pandemic has left lasting damage. There're also a lot more mass shootings than there were just 15 years ago. Robert Evans (he might actually make a good article considering he covers a lot of the same shit we do), conflict journalist and podcaster, calls this "the crumbles," where instead of collapse being sudden and explosive, things just gradually, inexorably, fall to shit, and what's actually the process of systems decay just seems normal. Carthage (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I actually don't even know if Marx/Engels were intentionally acknowledging mutual ruin as a possible outcome of this class struggle. But the fact they acknowledged it as a possible outcome to historical class struggles, makes me think they at least should have realized that was a possible outcome here too. But then, they lived in a different time. I'm not sure how they would practically relate to that outcome other than maybe some sort of massive series of wars devastating industrial output or maybe some kind of Luddite-ism doing so. Not sure they had much concept that profit-chasing could cause an ecological disaster on this scale. Though I'm sure they may have known that exploitable natural resources were finite. Chillpilled (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Systems collapse does not require a complete collapse, just a general degradation compared to what came before. (Generally speaking, imagine someone in Rome in, say, 500 CE talking with a person who remembered the empire and suddenly realizing that things that seem normal to them were very different when this hypothetical old person was young.) The effects also will obviously vary by region and demographic. The billionaires will probably be much less effected by climate change then the poor or people in the global south, although again it will vary. Carthage (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Marx was generally writing about the state of capitalism during the industrial revolution; Marx assumed that this contradiction (which was much more extreme at the time - the mindset was literally "for you, 10 others") would eventually lead to a revolution. This is... not how capitalism evolved. To put it in Marx' terms; the bourgeoisie got smarter. Even in those "cheap labor" countries, the rich don't sully their hands directly - they subcontract that stuff out. Middlemen, subsidiaries. Place as many (local) pawns as possible between them and the actual abuses. When something goes out, knock one pawn down, it won't affect the entire thing. In the richer countries, they learned to not abuse their workers to the point of desperation anymore because they can't get away with it (and no, I don't count the US as a rich country in this metric). People don't revolt, much less start a revolution (which remember, means going against the people with guns) unless they're desperate and have literally no other choices. The tenet that it will happen is proven false by the fact that we're ~180 years or so down the line and said prediction of a revolution still hasn't happened yet. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Communism vs socialism[edit]
@Monochroma I'd say it does come from Marx. According to the Critique of the Gotha Programme:[1]
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Now, granted, he didn't use the word "socialism" here, but he's clearly talking about a transition period. Regarding the idea of communism being stateless (Withering away of the state), it comes from Engels. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This seems true enough! The problem lies in terminology, as the socialist vs. communism distinction seems to come after his writing. If we want to mention a transitional state in that section I think that's okay, but I'm not sure this should be a "core tenet" of Marxism if it's not, well, a core tenet. It doesn't hurt to shorten the core points for ease of reading if it doesn't feel super central; I think a six-point definition of Marxism on this wiki page that already hedges its scope is plenty fair. Monochroma (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)