Talk:Karl Marx

All you want to know about Talk:Karl Marx

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karl Marx article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Karl Marx is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Karl Marx as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Greek or Italian language Wikipedias.
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

Family Decendants

In the Biography section it does not talk about his decendants. I would like to add this information but I cannot edit the article. How can I edit the article here. Marx01 (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms - labour theory of value

In the Criticisms section it is written that "The Austrian School of economics has criticized Marx's use of the labour theory of value." Actually all mainstream modern economists think that labour theory of value is not correct. Can somebody improve this statement? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be changed to 'There has been much criticism of Marx's use of the labour value theory, notably so from the Austrian school of economics', although It might be weasel wording If it isnt properly sourced.R.G.P.A (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What about something like "Marx uses labour theory of value to derive his theory of exploitation under capitalism, however most contemporary economists think that labour theroy of value is incorrect." --Doopdoop (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess you would have to find a source stating the most part, which might be difficult, but I dont know, at least we know that the Austrian school criticises the labour value theory.86.143.98.33 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW im R.G.P.A86.143.98.33 (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

you have to understand Marx came up with this in 1800s, it might hold true at that time, but not now. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitism ?"

Excuse me, but, how can someone who was or is Jewish be 'Anti-Jewish' (i.e. "Anti-Semitic")?????????!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I cut down on the number of question marks in the subject heading. Hope thats ok. I know that this is a periodic debate in this article. Marx didn't really identify as a Jew, so I don't think that's an issue. I do think that this article gives to much weight to those who argue that he was an anti-semite. Having actually read "On the Jewish Question," I think its pretty clear that Marx's argument was that Jews need to have emancipation from capitalism (i.e. end capitalist alienation), not just political emancipation. Many quotes in the text can be said to be anti-semitic, but Marx ultimately is in favor of both political and economic emancipation of Jews, so it should be made clear that the fundamental arguments of OJQ are not anti-semitic and are, at least for Marx, actually pro-Jew. I'll make edits soon unless someone beats me to it.--Bkwillwm (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Please try to keep your personal interpretations out of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not just my interpretation. I added a source to appease you. We can work out a decent section if we actuallly work at it. Reverting someone elses attempt to move to NPOV is not productive towards this. Right now the section is in very bad shape. It makes many stretches to portray Marx as an antisemite. Marx barely discussed Judaism in his many volumes of work, so pretending that antisemitism is central to his work is extremely misleading. I think the best section would be one that says Marx used antisemitic terms and there is further debate, etc. Right now there is a great deal of weight given to scholars who say Marx was antisemitic; however, none of these are even scholars of Marx. Most of the works cited deal with antisemtism, not Marx. They are not the best sources for understanding Marx. If you have a source from an actual Marx scholar, that would be great. P lease just go ahead and read "On the Jewish Question." It's short and it's clear Marx isn't attacking Jews, as you imply. Also, claims that Marx thought Jews thought Jews were the source of capitalism are absurd. Can you actually supply quotes from the writers you claim say this? I can't believe any serious scholar would make such a claim. Marx wrote thousands of pages on the origins of capitalism and makes almost no mention of Jews being connected to it. Not in OJQ or elsewhere. Additionally, claims that Marx inspired antisemites don't really belong here. It has no bearing on whether he was an antisemite or not. If anywhere, this should be in the legacy section. Finally, I added a perfectly legitimate citation where Marx argued for Jewish political emancipation and you just reverted it out. This is extremely poor editing. At least discuss why you removed it. I have tried to explain why I removed most of your sentences.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The section on anti-semitism is far too long, and thus POV by virtue of undue weight. The section relates almost entirely to On The Jewish Question, which is generally considered one of Marx's minor works, so it is out of place that it has such an extended discussion in this article (and OTJQ does have it's own article); furthermore, I don't think anti-semitism is among the most notable criticisms levelled at Marx (the economic, historical, and philosophical criticisms in the Criticism section are all more notable). It seems to me it would be appropriate to replace the current "Alleged Anti-Semitism" section with a couple of sentences in the Criticism section (and the material from "Alleged anti-Semitism" could be moved to On the Jewish Question as appropriate). VoluntarySlave (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you or I think. It is only important what secondary sources say. Per WP:OR: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. On other point, scholars of Marx are mostly those who are sympathetic to his views so most of them are probably not totally objective on this. Also, I can't believe that you think that experts on anti-Semitism are not best sources to establish whether Marx was anti-Semite. It's like saying that someone's biographer is better than a doctor in diagnosing whether that person is sick or not. -- Vision Thing -- 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy also says article space on a subject should be portioned roughly according to its prominence in academic literature. Right now, antisemitism makes up a sizable portion of the article, but does not generally seem to be a significant topic in scholarship on Marx. For comparison's sake, neither Encarta nor the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy even mention antisemitism. I haven't found much on Marx's antisemitism in several major books on him. I did find a few articles on the subject and I'll add material from them. However, I think this section has been blown out of proportion. I'm going to make a good faith edit based on the research.
Also, you didn't address why it's relevant that anti-Semites have supposedly been influenced by Marx. This has nothing to do with whether he was anti-Semitic.

--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Section could be significantly shortened by removing two largest quotes. Part about him influencing anti-Semites could go into "Marx's influence" section. -- Vision Thing -- 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The (end) section quoting Hal Draper is unneccessarily long and not directly related to the issue. Remove that and the atni-semitism section will be shorter and more directly to the point. It's got too long because its controversial. How do you decide what is a "notable criticism?".

Telaviv1 (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section is too long. Draper's quote could go. I think most of this section has a place in Wikipedia, but it is given undue weight in this article. The topic of anti-semitism should probably be moved into the criticism section and condensed to a paragraph. It should be moved to On the Jewish Question, or an article on Marx's antisemitism could be started.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree Bkwillwm but 20 days has passed but nothing changed. So can we move anti semitism section to criticism part? IMO, that s nonsense to accuse Marx being an anti semitic, because he wrote many pages about many things and this small quote only shows the sociological view of judaism. And what`s that sentence "Jonathan Sacks has written that virtually all major enlightenment philosophers were antisemitic, including Voltaire, Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche." It is not objective. Is it so easy that to accuse these thinkers being anti semitic by giving some references to some Rabbi s ?? I can make many references, because some religious people are saying "Marx is the enemy of the people, because he is against nations and religions and family, and blabla person says that all communists are the same", so is it okey? Anyway I ll move this section into criticism part or to the On the Jewish Question article. -- 85.107.160.10 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


This section falsely names as an enlightenment philosopher, who wrote a good hundred years after Voltaire and Kant, and is better described as a romantic or existentialist. Also, given the extreme nature of the quotation form Marx's "On the Jewish Question", is it really appropriate to saddle Kant, Hegel, Voltaire, and "virtually all major enlightenment philosophers" with having similar views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.50.58 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, that "on the jewish question" should be held as one of the first significant anti-racist tracts in the enlightenment. It was in defence of the liberation of minority groups, not just jews. This is about the protection of minority rights in view of an over powerful state! Surely this is significant as a German writer! I suspect that many of those who read it as an anti-semitic text do so because of the anti-semitism that existed under Stalinism and are unfortunately conflating Stalinism as the realisation of Marx's thought (which of course is inaccurate).--Daniel jones (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Jones' interpretation is entirely correct. Furthermore, Visionthings claim that"experts on anti-semitism are the best sources to establish whether someone was an anti-semite" is nonsense, because of course there is no such thing as an expert on anti-Semitism. It cannot be claimed that a bunch of scholars over at Tel Aviv somehow have the authority to declare who's an anti-semite and who's not. There are plenty of scholars who are just as well-versed (almost certainly better versed) in Marx's literature who do not claim he was an anti-semite, and just because they are supposedly not "experts on anti-semitism" does not mean that their views are less important. I think the section needs to be greatly reduced. The Darwin page does not feature the creationist hit-job on him that tries to argue that if you take a few of his paragraphs out of context it shows he supported social Darwinism - it does not feature it because it is just a hit-job. The claims of anti-semitism form a hit-job of little more value, and so should be at the very least cut down.JohnyGoodman (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

JG, you just reverted me. Please reconsider. I agree that the whole section should be shorter. i will not comment on Daniel jones' comment because my point is not who is right but NPOV. The edit that I reverted removed a good deal of material that described how complex and controversial the claim that KM was an anti-Semite is. That edit left readers thinking KM was an anti-Semite, plain and simple. it is not plain and simple and I reverted on NPOV grounds - the view that KM was not an anti-Semite needs to remain in the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion in WikiProject Human rights

I have added this article to the Human rights project because Karl Marx and Marxism has a bearing on human rights in a number of different ways. Karl Marx is referenced directly from Human rights because of his theories on property and surplus value, and the effect this has on the right to own property (from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Marx, and communism, also advocates many of the ecomonic and social rights which are included in the UDHR and which have historically marked the different approach to rights taken by the east and the west. Tkn20 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Marx's theory was also used to counter notions of indivudal rights and resulted in the most murderous regimes in Human history. Nearly 2/3 of all people killed by governments were killed by Marxist-Leninist governments (about 110 million). See [[1]]

Telaviv1 (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am really writing this post to counter the claims that Marxism has direct responsibility for human rights violations, or the regimes it has inspired, (although admittedly at the end of the day Marxism may hold some indirect reponsibility). I think the first person who posted may have a point, however to Telaviv one, although i agree with you that nearly every 'communist' regime has become a tyranny or mobocracy, you also have to realise that nearly every communist regime has not been at all orthodox Marxist. In orthodx marxism (which I dont support) Russia in 1917 would not have been fit to enter communism because it was mainly inhabited by a majority of agriculturalists, it was backwards, and most of its populace was uneducated or illeterate. China qualified even less, as it was totally backwards, and Mao basically disregarded orthodox Marxism, not to even mention cambodia or vietnam. I dont think was perfect, and I am no communist, but I think ideas can be learnt from every notweworthy philosophy, even Marx. You also have to realise Marx's motive for supporting communism was moral/ideological, whereas perhaps with the majority of revolutionary communists the reasons were nationalistic or materialistic, and therefore more associated with the right. What I am saying is that if Marx dictated that communist states should function as they have and do today, yes maybe human rights violations would deserve a mention, but his ideology is not to blame, it is the [people who follow his ideology who often commit the crimes.86.150.147.133 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC) User: R.G.P.A

On The Jewish Question

The claim, in the original article, attributed to Bauer, to the effect that "Those critics who see this as a foretaste of Mein Kampf overlook one essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defence of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians."

is entirely idiotic: Bauer emphatically does not think Jews should be baptized! On the contrary, he says that 'the basis of the state must be secular', because only then will every Jew, Christian and Muslim be treated as equals. Has any one of these people who call Marx and/or Bauer an antisemite ever read Marx and/or Bauer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.10.170 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read Bauer and you may be right about him but I have read "On the Jewish Question" and there is no doubt in my mind that it is antimsemitic. I suggest that you read it again. - especially the second half.

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The section on Marx's alleged anti-semitism is way too big for the article. Its out of porportion given the vast scope of his ideas and as such is undue-weight. I see another editor attempted to address this issue but apparently there needs to be some discussion about it. Does anyone object to making that section more concise and trimming it to a section called, "On the Jewish Question?," linking the the larger article on the sub-topic for greater depth? The proposed edit here, shortening this to one paragraph pointing to the larger article seems about the right size, but I'm open. Thanks.[2]Giovanni33 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Since anti-Semitism is prevalent in formerly communist countries, I do not think giving a lot of space to Marx's anti-Semitism is giving undue weight. I'm still shocked as to how anti-Semitic he was, especially given his "Jewishness" (yes, that descriptive can be argued forever, but is basically just a relevant point to me). There is one editor who is both Jewish and an avowed Marxist, and I would ask that he weigh in. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Lets see what other editors think about the material as it currently exists and the suggestion to trim it down a bit. I will say that an article on Karl Marx is quite separate from things found in former 'communist" countries. The connection between the two is tenuous at best. The essay On the Jewish Question, while it contains, out of context, some rather ugly use of the language that appears to be quite anti-semitic on its surface--hence the shock-- I think you are mistaken about Marx being anti-semitic, in fact. Its a richly layered essay that was an early piece of writing for Marx in a private latter to Bruno, arguing against him, in defense of Jewish rights, among other issues not related to Jews per se. I think you have to read the entire thing and the letter from Bruno to appreciate this. For a discussion see:[3] [4]
Back to the issue of Marx's view and "Communist States" practice, you should be equally compelled by the fact that the Marxist Left strongly supported the defense of Jewish civil and political rights, and for whatever dogmatic aspects of "assimilationism" that did exist as current within it (I think wrongly denying the importance of cultural and religious identity), this in fact failed to discourage large numbers of Jews from joining Marxist parties, and participating in prominent possitions within Marxist parties, in specific struggles against anti-Semitism. I also recall Rosa Luxemburg's positive take on the current struggle against a Jewish distinctiveness: a determination to repudiate all existing racial and religious prejudices in a new, socialist society. So despite the use of some shocking language, if its seen in proper context of what was actually being argued for as a political line and program, against those on the left at the time who were arguing that was in fact quite anti-semitic, Marx's view stands in opposition to that.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Very nicely explained. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I should respond to your question about trimming the section. Clearly, this is a divisive issue. Some people feel strongly that Marx was anti-Semitic, and others believe not only that Marx was not anti-Semitic but that those who think we was misread his essays criticizing Bauer by reading them literally (since Marx often wrote metaphorically). This is a pretty unbridgable gulf and it has had this consequence: for long periods of time, the article has nothing on anti-Semitism, as the issue is considered trivial. Then someone adds a section on anti-semitism and NPOV leads to a process in which the section grows and grows. Then someone cuts it because they think it is trivial, until someone comes back and creates a new section and the cycle repeats. This cycle has repeated a few times over the past several years.
The most important thing to do in my opinion is to have a spearate article on marx and anti-Semitism that is much more detailed than what we have here, and is a serious article that provides adequate biographical and historical context, as well as debates over how to read Marx, and so on, in which all major views are not only adequately represented but themselves properly contextualized. Then there can be a brief summary in this article with a link to the other article. If this is not done, someone - if not people actively watching this article now, then someone in the next year or two - will renew the cycle by adding more and more stuff. What i am saying is that th eopinions of people actively watching this page are not enough; one (you?) would have to handle it in a way that would anticipate and respond to those people who, without any doubt, will come by this article in a few months or a few years on a mission to publicize Marx's anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that analysis, and the history lesson about this section. I certainly agree with your proposal, and it is exactly what I had in mind. I assume the larger article would be Marx on the Jewish Question? If this proposal is agreeable to all parties we can start working on that article to bring it up to standards, moving over the details there, and then shortening the section here. I would be happy to work on that.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Since articles should not become too long I agree that it is often a good idea to create new articles. If there is sufficient place to fill, the reasonable ideas should pervade at last. However I'm not sure if "Karl Marx and Antisemitism" would be the best choice for an article. It seems to be POV to assume that there is a peculiar relation between KM and Antisemitism. At least, there are no special articles about e.g. "Arthur de Gobineau and antisemitism", or "Karl Marx and Communism" yet. Perhaps instead, it would be interesting to have a more general article "Marxism and Antisemitism" which takes into account not only the 19th century, but also later Marxists living in the 20th century, and how, after the Holocaust, Marxists tried to respond on what had happened. --Schwalker (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see your concern but I was thinking more to discuss in the various interpretations--and in context--the text "On the Jewish Question." If done properly it can be NPOV and not alleged only one POV, i.e. that it was anti-semitic.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. be that as it may, I think it is legit to have articles on key texts by Marx (like we have many articles on books and poems and plays). The two essays that typically comprisae "On the jewish Question" are generally considered pivotal texts in Marx's corpus of work and I think they would merit their own article, which could include a section on the question of whterh they are anti-Semitic. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of anti-Semitism is a truly minor aspect of his life and work (interestingly, it seems not to have been an issue at all in his lifetime). There are, of course, a handful of noisy complaints (as some editors indicate above) making this accusation, based on out of context and/or wild misinterpretations of the On the Jewish Question review, and generally motivated by a one dimensional anti-communism. It should be remembered that Marx is writing a century before the Holocaust, at a time when Germany was moving towards, not away from, emancipation for Jews. Marx was unquestionably on the side of Jewish people, however hard hitting his treatment of Judaism (and of course religion in general) was. If one is to be, as thr young Marx was, on a quest for the truly radical reformulation of human life, and rooting out all institutional fetters on the true human liberation he (and others in his circle) was reaching for, religion--including Judaism, was going to take a beating. This, to me, is a far cry from anti-Semitism--the attack on Jews qua Jews. It can probably be safely argued that the Jewish question writings have little at all to do with Jews per se. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a chat room where we discuss our own views. The purpose of this page is to improve the article. No matter how well-informed and thoughtful you are, and no matter how firmly you believe you are right, sooner or later someone will add a large and growing section to this article on Marx's anti-Semitism, with many citations, insisting that NPOV prevents us from deleting it, and NOR and V ensures the material can stay. As editors of the encyclopedia we need to come up with a realistic and practical solution to this situation and discussing our own personal views on whether or not he was anti-Semitic is simply irrelevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Marx wrote within the context of a deeply anti-semitic society which actively persecuted Jews. The concept of antisemitism did not exist at the time Marx wrote (the term was invented some 50 years later). Relative to his era his attitude might be defined as pro-Jewish in that it supported emancipation. However by modern standards, his texts are clearly anti-semitic in their description and attitudes toward Jews and, given the high esteem within which his writing is and has been held by subsequent generations, Marx probably contributed to anti-semitism of the left. The only way you can nullify that effect is by making readers aware of it. If you deny or hide it then there is a greater likelihood that ignorant readers will take from the text antisemitic conclusions. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I as a newcomer to this debate suggest that the section be transformed into a separate article - perhaps expanded to include other Marxists (e.g. Marxism and anti-semitism). My personal view is that the language of the essay has to be seen in the context of the times - many Zionist thinkers expressed themselves equally scathingly about the Jews of the Diaspora - but the basic purpose of the article was to support Jewish emancipation. With regard to Marx's robust remarks about various Jews in private correspondence, it should be borne in mind that he was equally robust in his use of other racial categorisations that would today be called racist. Whatever he was, Marx was not what would today be considered "politically correct". But in comparison to many other thinkers of his time, most of whom are not regularly accused of anti-semitism, he was remarkably free of prejudice, particularly in his writings for publication. This is not to say that anybody should be encouraged to adopt similar language today. --Mia-etol (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The material as it currently exists should not be trimmed. I find arguments that Marx's anti-semitic views are not important disturbing. Marx had made a huge impact on large segment of human population with his works. Some authors have said that the greatest enemy of the Jews after Nazi Germany was Soviet Union. As Slrubenstein said, this is not a chat room where we discuss our own views. Claims that Marx was an anti-semite are coming from known experts on anti-semitism. -- Vision Thing -- 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But the question is one of appropriate weight - the amount of space we spend on a subject in the article ought to roughly mirror the proportion of the literature that discusses that subject. Marx and anti-Semitism is comparatively little discussed (as a quick example, niether Britannica nor Encarta see it as worth mentioning in their articles on Marx), but the current section is really quite large, almost as large as the "Criticism" section, for instance - any one of the criticisms mentioned in that section has received more discussion than Marx's anti-Semitism, I would think. Besides which, I think the section is longer than it needs to be to get across the information it contains, and particularly the quotes could be used in a more targeted way (the worst offender here is obviously the long Draper quote at the end). It seems to me that what we need to say in that section is: some scholars of anti-Semitism write that Marx used anti-Semitic language and stereotypes, and influenced anti-Semitic movements; scholars of Marxism generally disagree, arguing either that things what appears to be anti-Semitic in Marx's writing is not anti-Semitic, or that Marx was no more anti-Semitic than the majority of other authors at the time. The section is currently much longer than it needs to be to make this fairly simple point.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The Draper article is available on-line in full, so a suitable selection of quotes in a summary could be linked to the original article itself. --Mia-etol (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the material should be trimmed at all - I'm arguing that it should be greatly expanded but in a separate article that is clearly linked from a summary in this article. This would allow this important issue to be aired without totally unbalancing an article about Marx and Marxism so that it in effect becomes primarily an article about Marx and anti-semitism to the effective exclusion of all other issues. In opposition to what you say about about claims that Marx was an anti-semite coming from experts on anti-semitism, there are other experts on anti-semitism who argue the contrary. Also many of the claims come from people who are explicitly anti-Marxist and who are making their accusations of anti-semitism in a clear attempt to discredit all Marx's ideas. It seems that aspirations to NPOV go out the window where Marx is concerned. --Mia-etol (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mia-etol that there could be an expanded article on communism and anti-Semitism. I still think the essays called "On the Jewish Question" are complex and important enough in Marx's ouevre that they merit an article of their own. With two such articles, the section on Marx as an anti-Semite, which is indeed outside of mainstream scholarship, could be trimmed down to something more appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There already is an article for On The Jewish Question. I think the OTJW article is the best place for most of the information on Marx and antisemitism. Mainstream Marx scholarship doesn't give much credence to the idea that Marx was antisemitic, and Jews and Judaism don't seem to have too much importance in Marx's works. Inclusion of so much discussion in the Marx article gives undue weight to the topic of Marx's antisemitism. I think the section should be cut down and most of the material moved to the OTJQ. --Bkwillwm (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like we have a general consensus to trim the section in this article and move over details to the main article On The Jewish Question----while expanding and improving that main article.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a real consensus. First one should recall that Marx' article Zur Judenfrage is one entity (with two different chapters), which was published in 1844. About this work (like about other literature which is considered relevant by the standard of WP), there already exists the Wikipedia-article On the Jewish Question. The text by Marx is mainly an essay on human and political emancipation and rights, not just about the Jewish people.
But the topic of Marx' alleged anti-semitism and allegations of anti-semitism against Marx is different from the topic of this early essay. Often you can read that texts and private letters from much later decades by Marx are quoted in this context. So I would strongly disagree with the intention I see of some here to treat the topic of Marx' alleged antisemitism in the article On the Jewish Question, since this would overload the article with content which does not belong in there, and would not be the historical and philological correct approach.
I'm happy to see that Mia-etol seems to agree with the proposed creation of an article "Marxism and antisemitism". Or perhaps, in order to address the problem of undue weight of the section in the "Karl Marx"-article from a neutral point of view, a new article titled "Karl Marx' alleged antisemitism" could be created. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think moving the material to OTJQ is adequate. First of all, the topic here is Marx, not Marxism , so "Marxism and antisemitism" is a different topic. Second, Marx rarely wrote on Jews and Judaism. Accusations of Marx's antisemitism always center on OTJQ, and Marx's handful of other comments on Jews/Judaism can be fit into the rest of the discussion in OTJQ.--Bkwillwm (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As a solution to the lack of balance in this article I find this suggestion quite acceptable. There should only be a summary here and the bulk of the material would be more appropriate in OTJQ. It could also be expanded without exacerbating the imbalance here. --Mia-etol (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not sure where do you see consensus. Only thing with which I agree is that this subject merits its own article. If such article is created ("Marxism and antisemitism" seems like appropriate title), then we could perhaps trim section here by removing long quotes. That would reduce section to half of its present size. -- Vision Thing -- 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be a step in the right direction. And perhaps if that article developed properly we could further reduce the section - by consensus naturally - to a more appropriate length. Otherwise we will have to lengthen an already very long article to restore the proper relative proportions between the various sections. --Mia-etol (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The section can easily be cut down to size with no impact on quality by removing the only marignally relevant section about Hal Draper and Mosses Hess. Firstly the Draper section claims that Marx was influenced by Hess, however MArx's inluences are not directly relevant (one could equally claim he was affected by Hegel's antisemitism so it wasn't he who was the antisemite). Secondly there is very little evidence that the statement is true. Third it is misleading as it fails to explain that HEss subsequntly recanted his views (having strayed from Judaism), recognizing that they were antisemitic and it was this that led him to write "Rome and Jerusalem". Telaviv1 (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Draper and Hess are only marginally relevant. The full Draper article deals extensively with the context of Marx's article and the contemporary significance and meaning of the various terms at the time the article was written. It is a serious error to interpret historical texts of any type on the basis of the present-day meaning of the terms used. I think this point is very relevant. It should also be borne in mind that many early Zionist writers expressed very negative ideas about the Jews of the Diaspora (including Hess in his later, Zionist period) - indeed this negative attitude to the Jews of the Diaspora was one of the reasons given for the necessity of setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine. However I agree that this part is far too long - that is why I'm arguing that the arguments presented here should be put in a clearly linked separate expanded article with only a relatively brief summary here. Most if not all of the quotations could then be shifted to that article, which could be expanded as contributors see fit without unbalancing this article to make it seem as if anti-semitism was THE major contribution of Marx to the intellectual life of the last century and a half. --Mia-etol (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Telaviv1, I hope you will reconsider your remarks. Your opinion of the quality of a source - and especially whether it is right or wrong - is utterly irrelevant (as is my opinion or Mia-etol's). Wikipedia articles must comply with various policies. We must include all notable views from verifiable and reliable sources, even (I'd say the spirit of the policy is, "especially") if we think they are wrong. Schwalker's view that "On the Jewish Question" is not about anti-Semitism or the Jews is, like Telaviv1's only his view. Reading the essay(s) i can certainly see why a reader would think they are about Jews and anti-Semitism. But again this takes is in the wrong direction because it does not matter what Schwalker or I think the essays are about. It is verifiable sources of notable views that count. I would add one thing, however, to this discussion: I think this and linked articles should give more weight to people who are acknowledged experts on Marx and Marxism. This would include people who have edited editions of Marx's work and who have written biographies of marx, as well as books and articles on Marxism. Other views of course can be included if they are notable, but I am calling attention to what I would consider the most notable and reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a problem with my incomplete English: When I've written: "not just about the Jewish people", I've meant that the topic of the essay as a whole is human/political rights/emancipation, which is different from "the Jews". This is not my opinion but an (almost standard) view on the essay, shared by many interpretations. I can't see were I would have claimed that ""On the Jewish Question" is not about anti-Semitism or the Jews". On the contrary, in my opinion both topics, the Jews and anti-Semitism are important elements of the essay. Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I miscommunicated as well. My point was not so much about what you said as such - rather, that we need to be clear not only to bracket our own views but actively to bring up and bring in verifiable sources for notable views. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Point of fact--Hess was, I believe, a strong influence on the young Marx (i.e., the relevant Marx who wrote On the Jewish question and the follow up sections in the Holy Family circa 1843-4). And while hegel's antisemitism may have influenced Marx, Marx seems to be at least equally influenced by Hegel's support for Jewish rights within the ideal Prussian state. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe you. But without verifiable and reliable sources, your information cannot go into any article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Several authors and editors of Marx's works including David McLellan point out that Hess introduced both Engels and then Marx to communism in this period. This would seem to me to be a fairly major influence. I'll gather some of the references (in both English and German) and present them here in the next few days. --Mia-etol (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bkwillkm, you write: "Accusations of Marx's antisemitism always center on OTJQ". I can't see this. If we look at the sources used in the current chapter of this WP-article, among those who refer to texts and letters written after OtJQ are:

  • J.Jacobs' article on Marx in Antisemitism. A historical encyclopedia ...
  • J. Muravchik refers to an alleged text by Marx, which at closer inspection has turned out as the misrepresentation of an article from 1849.
  • L. Boim, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Boim himself referring to
  • E. Silberner who wrote in the 1940s about Marx
  • B. Lewis according to the WP-article
  • H. Maccoby on p.66 of his book

So almost each of these accusers also refers to later texts and letters by Marx, which were not related to OtJQ when they were written. That is why in my view, it is evident that the essay and the accusations of Marx's antisemitism are two distinct topics. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC) corrected, --Schwalker (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a fair nuumber of reliable sources rebutting the notion of Marx' writings were not motivated by antisemitism (including those that acknowledge his use of some of the antisemitic slurs of his day). Discussions of Marx and antisemitism almost always center on OtJQ. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, what does "center on" mean? The last half of an hour, I've written the list above of sources which don't merely rely on OtJQ, but also on later texts of Marx. To me that means that these sources don't "center" on OtJQ, but on the later texts, too ?! Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Good list, Schwalker, but if you consult them, you will see that most focus (center) on OTJQ as the main source for claims about Marx' alleged antisemitism, with some minor discussion of later private writings. And Lewis' claim about "later" is really about a remark of Engels. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, above I asked you for sources. Now you reply that souces exist, but refuse to nameor provide the citations. You are being evasive and this is unconstructive. Provide us with the sources that support your cloams, or don't, it is as simple as that. If you cannor provide reliable and verifiable sources, it doesn't matter what you believe. And it doesn't matter that you believe sources exist. Please provide them. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of sources in the On the Jewish Question article already; also David Riazanov's biography of Marx and Engels discusses Hess' influence. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Boodles, I am glad to see we are amassing a good list of sources. i have one observation. It is evident that some sources will be experts on Marx and Marxism, and others will be experts on anti-Semitism. i think we need to be careful about how we use these sources. Established experts on marx have more authority about what marx's writings mean than people who are not experts on Marx. Experts on anti-Semitism can explain what anti-Semitism is. If any make claims that Marx was an anti-Semite, we need to be more careful about assessing their reliability. If a source can document that something Marx wrote was an explicit an ddirect influence on an anti-Semitic action, that is one thing - very reliable. If a source just says "I find this anti-Semitic," I consider this much less reliable. Good historians know that to interpret historical documents (what they mean, let alone the intention of the author) you need to know a LOT about the context. My point is simple: scholars, like anyone else, can make two kinds of comments, well-informed and uninformed. If an MD gives a detailed examination of a patient and provides a diagnosis, that has lots of authority. If I tell my MD that I have a friend who compains about x and the doctor suggests a diagnosis, that has less authority. If the MD is a specialist in oncology and diagnoses cancer, that diagnosis has a lot of authority; if the MD is an othopedic surgeon and gives a diagnosis of cancer, it has less authority. I am not rejecting any sources out of hand, just saying that we need to put the sources themselves in context, assess them, and use them carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your arguments are not supported by logic or Wiki policy. Your argument is like saying that your family doctor has bigger authority in determining whether you have cancer or not because he knows you better. That's completely bogus. Specialists on cancer are true authority there. Your family doctor can know you and study you your whole life but that doesn't enable him to say "Yes, you have cancer" or "No, you don't have it." On the other hand, specialists on cancer (anti-semitism) have much bigger authority on that issue. Experts on anti-semitism shouldn't be cited for their opinion on class struggle or Marx's LTV, but they definitely should be cited on question whether Marx was anti-semite or not. They are biggest authorities on that issue, because that have greatest understanding on what anti-semitism is and what are its symptoms. -- Vision Thing -- 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And what is your opinion of Marxist specialists on questions of racism and anti-semitism? Are they beyond the pale because they are Marxists? Or are only Zionists allowed to be specialists on anti-semitism? --Mia-etol (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<--Obviously we have to use judgment in sorting through sources, and allow for the complexities of history (the diallectic, as it were :)). It of course becomes complicated when there are contradictory elements. Marx is associated with a movement (communism) that takes pride in it's stand and deeds and indeed courageous sacrifices against anti-Semitism, and he is accused of antisemitism. Thomas Jefferson is considered father of an American democracy seen by billions throughout history as a beacon of light against oppression, and he (and countless other "Founding Fathers") stand accused of the most vile racist oppression--the holding of chattel slaves. Nothing is one dimensional. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Historians who are experts on Jeffesron are addressing the racism question and they do so in a well-informed way, accounting for the complexities of many things Jefferson said and did, in their historical context. Many people who accuse Jefferson of being a racist - and many people who insist he was not a racist - are equally wrong because they just do not know enough about the things he did and said and the context in which he spoke and acted. The most authoritative sources on what jefferson meant by ANYTHING he said are historians who specialize in Jefferson and US colonial history - not experts on "racism" in general. The same is true for Marx. Vision Thing is dead wrong and of course she misinterpreted my analogy. The point is not that my "family dcotor" (a term I never used) happens to "know me" better. My point is that a doctor needs to do a thorough examination of me before making a meaningful diagnosis. For someone to read a few letters by marx and call him an anti-Semite is like a doctor taking my temperature and telling me I have bruselosis. A good doctor will take a history as well as a more complete record of symptoms and signs. For anyone to interpret any writing of Marx accurately, they need to know the context - the larger corpus of Marx's writing, Marx's personal history, the social context in which he wrote (|Europe in the 1840s and 1850s) and the intellectual context in which he wrote (e.g. Hegel, Proudhon, Smith, Ricardo, Feurbach). This is not marxist propaganda, it is basic standards of professional historiography. The same criteria apply to interpreting the Bible or the Declaration of Independence. Vision Thing simply seems not to respect academic historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is disrespectful to experts, that is you Slrubenstein. On what grounds do you claim that experts on anti-semitism reached their conclusion on Marx's anti-semitism by reading "a few letters by marx" while not aware of the social context? Your reasoning is completely baseless. You are trying to give less importance to scholars who don't accommodate your personal point of view. You are not better in judging quality of sources on Marx's anti-semitism than you are in judging what my sex is. -- Vision Thing -- 18:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
All my comment asserts is that one must be an expert on marx to make authoritative claims about the meaning of Marx's work. It is obvious that if an expert on anti-Semitism is also an expert on Marx, my doubts do not apply to that person. They apply only to those who lack such expertise. As for my personal point of view, it is only to respect the standards of professional historians. I never expressed any view about the content of what an expert on Marx might have to say about Marx's views about Jews. I do not care whether an expert on marx argues that marx was and anti-Semite or was not an anti-Semite and I defy you to provide any quote of anything I said that suggests the contrary. If you can demonstrate to me that a particular source is indeed an expert on Marx, his life, his work, the historial and social context in which he lived and wrote, of course I will accept that source as reliable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I will do that after you demonstrate that a particular expert on Marx is also an expert on history of anti-semitism, its symptoms and the social and intellectual context in which it develops.
Your comment asserts that one must be an expert on Marx to make authoritative claims about the meaning of Marx's work, but following same logic one also must be an expert on anti-semitism to make authoritative claims on someone's anti-semitism. Source must be expert on B to make authoritative claims about B. -- Vision Thing -- 11:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the section on Marx' antisemitism will have to remain "too long" simply because the subject is too controversial to enable a short summary. We could add a provisor saying that none of his other important essays are considered to contain antisemitic contents. The Thomas Jefferson article also contains a long section on slavery including the line "Some find it baffling that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves yet was outspoken in saying that slavery was immoral and it should be abolished". We could say that 'some find it baffling that Marx, himself of Jewish origin and a supporter of Jewish emancipation could have written an article making abusive comments about Jews...' Telaviv1 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why it has to be here. There is already a separate article about this text, where the discussion here is hardly reflected at all. Would it not be more appropriate to shift the discussion to that article, while including a statement like the one you have just suggested here ans adding something like "A full discussion of this issue can be found in the article ..."? -Mia-etol (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mia-etol. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be fine as long as we keep the Alleged Antisemitism section as a seperate section. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Section has to be here because it is on Marx's anti-semitism in general and not just on his anti-semitism in OTJQ. Part of the section content would be off-topic there and it is on-topic here. -- Vision Thing -- 11:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Mia-etol, Slrubenstein, et al. It seems consensus is against Vision Thing, on this question. I think we can go ahead and make the appropriate changes, and if he dissents, still, he should not edit war but keep further impute through the conflict resolution methods, Rfc, etc. Discussion on the page has been good and points to trimming this section as described above (no need to repeat the arguments).Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to remember that although the issue (Marx' purported antisemitsm) is controversial, and will probably be so for a very long time and never be "resolved," its not a terribly large issue. It's not as if major works are devoted to it; it's largely discussed in passing, and often as part of a general larger polemic. The handful of works that discuss the issue pretty much all follow the same line of thought (both pro and con) without much variation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni, I would first like for your arbcom case to be over before starting dispute resolution process with you. It seems to me that only consensus we have reached is about moving Draper's quote to OTJQ. -- Vision Thing -- 09:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense - the question of marx's anti-Semitism is relatively trivial, whereas OTJQ is one of the most important of his early essays. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just some it all up in three sentences with representative refs and do away with the whole unsightly quote farm altogether, per WP:UNDUE. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a very valid point. Perhaps 3 sentences is a little bit short - but in general, the argument could be taken up in more detail in an ancillary article, e.g. the one specifically on the text OTJQ. --Mia-etol (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
<