Talk:Karl Marx

october 20, 2007

Richard, sorry, but Marx is obviously a philosopher first and foremost, and an economist. Those are the subjects that he wrote about and is famous for. He also really belongs in politics because of his foremost position as the political theoretician of the left. He had a great impact on history, obviously, but via his impact on philosophy, economics, and politics. The leading experts about Marx are not historians, but philosophers, economists, and political theorists. --Larry Sanger 13:29, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Larry--let's your experts handle this one please. Let the philosphers contribute but so far they have not made a contribution here. As fir the economists, he's a minor figure as the article explains. Richard Jensen 13:44, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

I don't believe we have anyone here who is an expert about Marx. If you can find one, Richard, perhaps we should consult him or her. --Larry Sanger 15:04, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

This is a tough call. In the narrow social sciences, Marx's contribution is I think in the order Politics, Sociology, Economics. History is clearly a major component -- not only because of his historical importance, but also because of the role of history in his own writings. Arguably, his account of the transition from feudalism to capitalism was the best thing he wrote. And, yes, he also has a role in philosophy. How to prioritise? I have no idea. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:48, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

History comes in because he had an enormous influence on historiography. Economics on the other hand --he had little influence there. ("a minor ricardian" as Samuleson says.) In 2007 among active scholars I would guess he is best represented in literature departments! The problem is that the coding system allows only three categories. The solution is to chnage a line or two of code and make that 5 categories. Richard Jensen 14:19, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

I concur with Samuelson on that.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:52, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

who studies Marx?

Which disciplines pay most attention to Marx? I looked at the most recent 50 articles (including book reviews) in JSTOR with "Karl Marx: in the title. Here's the list of journals. I think politics and history clearly predominate, with Sociology 3rd and philosophy training behind.

1. American Ethnologist > Vol. 12, No. 1 (F
2. American Ethnologist > Vol. 14, No. 4 (N
3. American Journal of Political Science >
4. Assemblage > No. 41 (Apr., 2000), p. 21
5. Canadian Journal of Political Science /
6. Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers
7. Comparative Studies in Society and History >
8. Contemporary Sociology > Vol. 13, No. 6
9. Contemporary Sociology > Vol. 13, No. 6
10. Critical Inquiry > Vol. 28, No. 2 (Winte
11. Europe-Asia Studies > Vol. 49, No. 8 (De
12. German Studies Review > Vol. 12, No. 2 (
13. International Political Science Review /
14. Journal of Interdisciplinary History > V
15. Latin American Perspectives > Vol. 27, N
16. Man > New Series, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar.,
17. MELUS > Vol. 28, No. 2, Haunted by History (S
18. Modern Judaism > Vol. 4, No. 3 (Oct., 19
19. New German Critique > No. 82,
20. Noûs > Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp.
21. Perspectives on Politics > Vol. 1, No. 1
22. Philosophy > Vol. 63, No. 246 (Oct., 198
23. Political Psychology > Vol. 5, No. 3 (Se
24. Political Theory > Vol. 12, No. 4 (Nov.,
25. Political Theory > Vol. 28, No. 4 (Aug.,
26. Polity > Vol. 22, No. 2 (Winter, 1989),
27. Reviews in American History > Vol. 22, N
28. Shakespeare Quarterly > Vol. 43, No. 3 (
29. Slavic Review > Vol. 43, No. 4 (Winter,
30. Social Scientist > Vol. 12, No. 9 (Sep.,
31. Social Studies of Science > Vol. 20, No.
32. Sociological Analysis > Vol. 46, No. 2 (
33. Soviet Studies > Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jan., 1
34. Teaching German > Vol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn
35. Technology and Culture > Vol. 29, No. 2
36. The American Historical Review > Vol. 95
37. The American Historical Review > Vol. 94
38. The American Historical Review > Vol. 92
39. The American Historical Review > Vol. 90
40. The American Journal of Sociology > Vol.
41. The Economic Journal > Vol. 103, No. 416
42. The English Historical Review > Vol. 107
43. The History Teacher > Vol. 29, No. 3 (Ma
44. The Journal of Modern History > Vol. 69,
45. The Journal of Modern History > Vol. 62,
46. The Journal of Modern History > Vol. 62,
47. The Journal of Politics > Vol. 48, No. 2
48. The Journal of Religion > Vol. 66, No. 2
49. Theatre Journal > Vol. 42, No. 3, Women
50. Theory and Society > Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jun
51. Richard Jensen 14:34, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

That proves little. Try searching for "Marx OR Marxian OR Marxist". Philosophers, in discussing Marx's philosophy, might not use the phrase "Karl Marx" so much in titles, of course. Articles in the history of philosophy rarely use the full name of a thinker. Another reference point would be which departments offer courses in which Marx is a major figure.

Capital is, of course, as much a treatise of economics as anything, and it is the main source of his reputation as a theoretician. How history is included and economics is not is beyond me. Removing history again, on these rather obvious grounds. --Larry Sanger 15:04, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, "Marx" and "Marxism" are really two very different things. "Marx", in my mind, would be categorized as sociology, economics, history whereas "Marxism" would be politics, sociology, philosophy. (Keep in mind that my education is in sociology, so I probably give it more weight than it deserves.) --Joe Quick 16:50, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Joe is of course right and we have a separate article on Marxism. The CZ categories are 21st century categories, and here is what scholars since 1990 in different fields have done. Since 1990, the term "Marx" or "Marxism" has appeared in titles in JSTOR journals:

1. 118 articles in history journals
2. 108 in sociology and population studies
3. 100 in politics and public policy
4. 93 in literature
5. 48 in philosophy
6. 44 in economics and business

Richard Jensen 16:56, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

If we make this crucial distinction between Marx and marxism, then in my opinion Marx must be history, politics, sociology. His political economy contribtions can be subsumed within politics, and are not important for the economics discipline. For marxism [which I recommend with lower case], it would be sociology, politics and philosophy I suppose (I am less sure about the order, here).

To clarify for poor Larry, who is mortified by the idea of excluding economics: it is possible to write about economics, and to have more of an impact upon (a) other academic disciplines, and (b) the real world, in a historical sense. This is why someone who is first and foremost linked with economics in the popular mind, is actually of marginal interest for that profession. Anyway, that's my penny's worth :-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:14, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

I don't have time for this. Go ahead and do what you wish. --Larry Sanger 19:18, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

OK, when it comes to the exclusion of philosophy, I have to insist: Marx is first and foremost known and studied as a philosopher--even if he is known and studied as a philosopher by people who are not actually philosophers themselves. It's rather like all the people in literature who study Derrida, who wrote about philosophy. The notion that sociology is included as a category and not philosophy is quite simply ridiculous.

Let's consider the categories settled now. Let's not waste any more time in further debate. Let's allow real Marx scholars--which means, none of us--hash this out later. --Larry Sanger 09:39, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Possibly, one of the recent recruits from Balkan countries has expertise in this area. WE should try to find a marx scholar or two for this article. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:01, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

January 23 2008

I am not for the moment inserting any edits in the article. It behooves me, however, to remark that this article is incorrect to "reduce" Marxism to "economic self-interest," and also the brief section on alienation errs in attributing an individualist emphasis to Marx's writings. The author is probably over-influenced by the arguments of Jon Elster, two of whose books are cited in the bibliography with external links to text. Despite Elster's being well known, and despite the relatively wide circulation of his publications, he interprets Marx not in terms of what Marx meant but in terms of what Elster the philosopher of neo-positivism, and self-proclaimed "methodological individualist," would like Marx to have meant. Also it is necessary to register a quibble about whether anyone can be said to be "the most important of all socialist thinkers" (what is the criterion); and to indicate that since he died in 1883 and the Bolshevik Revolution occurred 1917, it may be problematic to suggest that he is "the creator of ... the political system called Communism," moreover insofar as it is impossible to find any description remotely resembling the Soviet regime in all of his vast writings. Robert M. Cutler 23:03, 23 January 2008 (CST)

I think we can reasonably tell readers that Marx is the most important socialist thinker. The Communists hail him as their founder. On the Elster-isms, authors are free to add to the article. (If you delete stuff, bring it to talk first).Richard Jensen 05:13, 24 January 2008 (CST)

The above comment is unattributed. By CZ rules it should be deleted or brought to administrative attention. Also, I have to check to see whether it is obligatory to discuss deletions in Talk before executing them. I believe it is protocol to bring unsigned comments to a Constable's attention. (That Communists hail Marx as their founder does not make him by itself the most important socialist thinker. Best known, perhaps.) Robert M. Cutler 03:20, 24 January 2008 (CST)

sorry about the missing signature (the History page tells everyone who wrote it). The Communists hail Marx as their founder, and the Socialists also do so. Who is more important, Engels? Richard Jensen 05:13, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Aside from the difficulty of speaking about either "Communists" or "Socialists" in categorical terms, it's unclear exactly who is meant by these terms. Who is more significant than Marx? Well, Engels is more significant than Marx in some respects: Engels, not Marx, created dialectical materialism, which was developed into the official ideology of the Stalin period, which for some people is the epitome of Communist rule. And the choice isn't just between Marx and Engels. There is absolutely nothing about a vanguard (Leninist) party in either Marx or Engels, and references to a "dictatorship of the proletariat" are rare and vague. So it is very arguable that "Communism" (as the term is conventionally used) would not have existed without Lenin and Trotsky. And then, there is a whole gallery of non-Marxian socialists before and since Marx and "during"), who don't get the attention they deserve. Robert M. Cutler 21:32, 24 January 2008 (CST)

yes, but this is an encyclopedia entry on Marx and we should summarize the main consensus among scholars. I think the articles on Marxism, Socialism and Communism are the places to talk about other people and their ideas. The Soviet Communists (back in 1986 when I was a visiting professor at Moscow State U) were careful to give Marx and Lenin top billing (with Lenin somewhat higher).Richard Jensen 21:49, 24 January 2008 (CST)

The other people and their ideas should have their own articles. Marxists are overrepresented among scholars of the left because they had a state apparatus or two subsidizing their labors. I also observed the emphasis on Marx and Lenin when I lived in Moscow in 1979-80 and on my numerous trips before and since. But are you advocating an uncritical adoption of the historiographic tradition of Soviet historians? They have a reputation for leaving things out, not to mention falsification. Robert M. Cutler 22:02, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Interesting page on French WP

I discovered that the French WP has 3 related pages 1) Marx - Life 2) Marx - Thoughts 3) Marxism

Hmm.

We may as well have 2) Marxian thought, with Marx as a pioneer in this kind of thinking, courageously resisting the rise of Marxist thinking (Marx himself said he wasn't a marxist). This is basically what the WP-FR article is based on. Experts needed -- of course.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:53, 24 January 2008 (CST)