Talk:Marxism

Remove far-left and left-wing adjectives from the first line

The far-left adjective makes a subjective assumption that does not conform to a neutral POV. In addition, how can a method of analysis be considered left-wing or right-wing in the first place? The history and origins of this method of analysis are left-wing, but we cannot consider the method itself to be. That would be like claiming the "scientific method is a left-wing method of analysis". Enigma91 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the references you removed? Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the definitions in those references are incorrect.

Reference (2): The definition on dictionary.com claims that Marxism is an ideology; however this Wiki itself already states that Marxism is "a method of socioeconomic analysis".

Reference (3): This says communists have a "commitment to Marxism", which simply means that communists follow that method of analysis. That doesn't make the method itself left-wing or far-left as there is nothing in historical materialism with which we can make that claim. Another example is psychology which is defined as the study of mind and behavior: there are different schools of thought under psychology but it doesn't give the act of studying it any political flavor. Marxism is a specific method of analyzing and studying history and societies; the call to action based on the outcome of this study can be said to be left-wing or right-wing, but not the method of study itself. Enigma91 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

So, I guess you didn't read them. (1) is borked right now, must not have paid The Man for their hosting (2) "Radical left" is defined using Marxism as the example (3) "Contemporary far-left parties in Europe" are discussed in extensive detail. Your analysis or deconstruction isn't usable for content on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've read the discussion here, and I've looked at the article a few times, and I prefer the version where the left and far left adjectives are used later in the paragraph and with respect to *political* tendencies. Marxism is a way of investigating reality. That is not where the left or right qualities apply.

As a marxist I consider my political leaning as left. It irks me to see marxism described as "left-wing" even though there are economic schools of thought I would call right-wing. I do have a sense though that the article is not fully neutral when it judges what I think of as a scientific approach as being politically skewed.

It is complex, as deciding what is or is not scientific itself is hotly debatable. Yet the criteria about what is scientific is not left or right wing leanings, even though there may be correlations.

I say revert. Waltzzz (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources predominately call it left wing. It's not really at all deniable that Marxism is a left wing ideology. — Czello 07:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Left wing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The Austrian School of economics has a predominantly right-wing perception. Yet that article doesn't say that the "Austrian school is a right-wing to far-right school of economic thought". If Marxism is labeled as left-wing, then Austrian School of economics and Chicago School of economics should be labeled as right-wing. Enigma91 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What other articles do is irrelevant to how this article operates. — Czello 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removing the "left/far-left" label. Marxism is a method of analysis and a theory of history, not a political ideology. Magnetizedlion27 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It is overwhelmingly described as left wing by sources. — Czello 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the important distinction to make is between a materialist-marxist inquiry (the 'theory' which absolutely is neutral and is part of a much older tradition than a left-right division in political thought) and the political applications of the conclusions of these analyses.

To give more insight for the first point, Marx's ontology is inherited from authors like Lucretius, and is founded on the argument that, in order for us to be able to have senses and exist, the world must be made of material in flux, which "swerves" and folds in on itself. In his dissertation, Marx very thoroughly explains a pedetic dialectic which founds the rest of his work. He makes a few important claims: that matter does not move in any determinate manner, and that matter is fundamentally relational (beyond simple cause and effect). Moreso, while Marx obviously draws moral and political conclusions based on his analysis, the analysis itself is purely a "kritik" (examining the conditions for the existence of, e.g. capital, exploitation, etc.). There's a reason why marx himself said he wasn't whatever people thought a "marxist" was. ' GuugWiki (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of WP:NPOV in first line

As per ongoing discussion, I will raise the issue officially (again) here to seek consensus.

This discussion concerns the proposal to suggest political bias to the use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (Marxism). Marxist school of thought (political philosophies arising from use of Marxism) may quite rightly be assigned political bias, however it is entirely inappropriate to define an historical and sociological approach (i.e. Marxism) as such. Assuming good faith WP: AGF one might assume the first line of the article appears from a frequent misunderstanding.

Tracing back the edit history, the edit to amend the first line to include political categorisation can be seen to be first made by an non-user (IP address only), to be then reverted by User:Lol1VNIO citing (correctly) a failure to adhere to WP: NPOV. At a later point this was added back in before being reverted again on 31/07/22 by User: Enigma91 once again for violating a NPOV. Immediately following this User: Acroterion reverted the revision claiming an "undiscussed revision"; which of course was not true since the absence of political adjectives was the page's status quo. Despite it not being their responsibility to, User: Enigma91 raised this in the discussion page; and as User: Czello noted, no clear consensus was reached during this discussion - meaning that the page should remain as its status quo i.e. absent of political description. Regardless this back and forth has continued since July, with passing users (e.g. User:DrLeonardHMcCoy, User: MaxWM7096, User: Enigma91, User: Granger Barnett, User: WilliamThomas22) noting and removing the improper description using political bias, immediately followed by reversions by almost exclusively by either User: Czello or User: Acroterion.

I move to reach consensus and enable closure this matter (while clearly noting that the 'status quo' of this page is an absence of political adjectives; tracing back to when the WP: edit warring began on 31/07/22; thus a failure to reach clear consensus should maintain the absence of political adjectives no matter what the page looks like now or during this discussion). Please provide comments below. DocHeuh (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"the proposal to suggest political bias to the use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (Marxism)" Not sure what that really means, but nobody responded to your comments in January and October, and there appears to be a moderate preference for "left wing" as opposed to "far-left-wing," with some debate concerning where that should go. In as few words as possible, what are you suggesting? Most of the edits you've cited were made as drive-by changes by editors with few contributions and no discussion or attempt to gain consensus. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Re; your first comment the fact that you're "not sure what that really means" is precisely my point; and highlights a confusion between two distinct uses of the same term. My precise suggestion is that characterisation as "left" in nature is appropriate for use of one of these terms but not the other. Namely it is not suitable to describe Marx's use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (which is the academic theory called 'Marxism'), but is appropriate for a number of the political philosophies ("Marxist Schools of thought") emerging from application of the former (often mischaracterised as 'Marxism'). Please note the difference between the term as an noun i.e. 'Marxist' which may or may not be characterised as 'left-wing' and as verb 'Marxism' which is appropriate to be categorised with political descriptors. DocHeuh (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be clear on the change you're suggesting, this discussion is aiming to remove "left-wing to far-left" from the lead, correct? In which case I'd ask why it would not be neutral to describe the "method of socioeconomic analysis" (as the article words it) as left-wing, particularly when it is well sourced? (Side note, though this isn't an official RFC I have notified WP:PLT of this thread for their input). — Czello 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Here from WP:PLT. I also don't see what the issue is here. Marxism—whether the context is political, economic, or sociological—is widely agreed to be left-wing or far-left, and I don't know if I've ever seen a reliable source that says it isn't either of those things. Describing Marxism as far-left isn't any different than describing fascism as far-right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agree entirely. It's well-sourced and I think it's frankly a WP:FRINGE view to suggest it's not left-wing/far-left. — Czello 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Heuh0, it appears you've been posting messages on the talk pages of users that support your version of the article. I'd like to remind you of the Wikipedia behavioral guideline on WP:CANVASSING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Also from WP:PLT. I generally agree with DocHeuh that the method of analysis, which can be used by followers of any polictical ideology and the various political ideologies influenced by Marx, which are left-wing, should be seperated. I would suggest to just re-write the lead, so that it refers to both, the method and the broadly left-wing ideologies. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As per my reply to User: Acroterion; I think this suggestion is a sensible common ground. My issue lies only with the clear lack of sensitivity to the two separate uses of the term (one academic and one political). Marxist schools of thought does have its own page, thus I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the intention for this page was for Marxism (as the academic theory) thus being inappropriate for political characterisation. Should this page instead be intended to represent all (including often mischaracterised) uses of "Marxism", I see no problem. But critically, this should be made immediately clear to prevent misleading readers. DocHeuh (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason for my original change back in July is that having the "left / far-left" be the first words describing Marxist ideology appears incredibly misleading and inaccurate. As evidence by my change at the time, while I do not feel indicating such an association between Marxism and political affiliations is inherently incorrect, having its position in the opening paragraph (let alone the first descriptor) is a mistake. Assigning such a designation does go against Wikipedia's pursuit of neutrality as others have pointed out. I further find the claims of "well-sourced" debatable and the terms themselves of minimal informative value given the lack of a standardized definition.

Political leanings, given the inherent variability and transient nature of the meaning "left/right-wing" on a historical and contemporary level, make such a descriptor a function of opinion and not of a real inherent fact to Marxism (or any ideology described as such). Political "leanings" are seemingly only assignable after the fact and very relative to the location and time of the political scenario in question. The first cited source does show association of Marxism and the political left of its time. But does left/far-left politics of 1871 France hold the same meaning as today? What are the tenants of left/right affiliations in 1870s France? What are they even now? The second source doesn't say. It only uses Marxism and Maoism as frequent, but not exclusive examples, of whatever "radical-left" means. At best this highlights the contemporary association of the concepts. Wikipedia's own article on far left politics struggles to define it concretely, and for good reason. Its only mention of Marxism is regarding its association of the term in political news media and nothing else. The third source highlights contemporary definitions of far-left and extreme-left in Europe, but again it's contemporary and in the context of Europe. Is far-left, left, right, etc in Europe the same everywhere else? Not relative to the United States and almost assuredly not to many other countries. I suspect a decent variance in such terms exists within Europe itself. This source also discusses how such left leaning groups have changed in the last ~50 years (at the time of writing). So the author, from an ethnocentric perspective, describes modern left/far-left is different than what was in the previously.

Rather ironically, it would seem those citing the first source neglected reading near the beginning in which it also states: "...an objective view of what is right and left is obscure". It's a great point, because it is obscure. We are using this label from what loose contemporary social understanding exists regarding the meaning of these terms. I feel the few supporting keeping the "left/far-left" descriptor are failing to separate modern political discourse to what actually defines something (in this case Marxism). We can remove left/far-left descriptor from the page and nothing about Marxism is lost. What does it even mean? It's not a rhetorical question but rather highlights my point. Thebigguyalien mentions that Marxism being far left is the same as fascism being described far right. But again, these terms are so nebulous with very ephemeral meanings. I could easily make the case that US conservative politics is "on the right". Conservative politics of today, among other things, would seem to heavily emphasize minimal government involvement and oversight. Yet fascism is probably the best definition of maximal government oversight/involvement, but is also far-right? Is right/far-right politics defined by minimal government oversight or heavy? What is either side defined by?

I belabor this to not define political leanings, but rather highlight their near non-existent utility in defining Marxism (or really anything for that matter). Such subjectivity has no place in the pursuit of an objective detailing of any concept. The sources cited, when they are not actually highlighting the unestablished meanings of these terms, only serve to show a contemporary association of the concepts from maybe a western perspective? That's why I would prefer to revert to the time when the "left/far-left" descriptor was absent entirely. It seems to only confuse the subject and adds nothing to what Marxism is. I also think a variation of my previous edit would be adequate. That version put it at the end of the opening paragraph stating that Marxism is associated with some modern political concepts of "left/far-left". This importantly delineates the actual concept from modern political discourse and shows only that the two are sometimes associated, but not inherently tied together. DrLeonardHMcCoy (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Making Clarifications and adding a section on Marx's ontology

Hey everyone! I've read through the article and think that adding a section on Marx's ontology (and in particular his doctoral dissertation) could help frame some of the other concepts in the article. One point in particular is that it helps to clarify what exactly constitutes the "base" in the base-superstructure metaphor; namely, that it is nature.

In addition to this I see that the lead has remained very much the same and still includes the political modifier before explaining a distinction between the 'theory' and 'applications'. I would like to try and rewrite it soon.

Before making any changes to the article, I'll post them here, but I would also appreciate feedback for whether or not these changes are warranted or if there is a better place for them. GuugWiki (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue with the overview

As it stands, the overview only seems to describe vulgar Marxism and is likely to be misleading. While I get the need for simplicity, it seems like a problem to offer as simple and uncontroversial something rejected by almost all contemporary Marxists (ie, economism / determinism). It seems to me that not the materialist conception of history but the analysis of capital & the production of surplus value should anchor this section. It’s both far more comprehensively presented by Marx and closer to something like the consensus view than the ever-controversial problems of base & superstructure, etc. 2603:7000:3E00:38DE:301D:7EBF:245F:E498 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)