|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Template talk:Marxist theory |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Template | This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
| Part of the series on Marxism  |
| Sociology |
| Alienation |
| Antagonistic contradiction |
| Bourgeoisie |
| Class consciousness |
| Commodity fetishism |
| Exploitation |
| Labour power |
| Proletariat |
| Relations of production |
| Underconsumption |
Dunno what picture to use. Marx was good, until I put this template on Marxism, which meant there were two Marxes next to each other - ugly. Any ideas? -- infinity0 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
How about creating a picture of a real hammer and a real sickle? -- infinity0 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's see how it looks. Is it fair use? -- infinity0 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded that image; here's how it looks: What do you think? It makes the whole template red, which might not be that good. -- infinity0 12:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the picture of the semi-young marx is good here, on a side note I added Marxist feminism to the template.-RainyDayCrow
I think the template for this series should reflect the intellectual side Marxism which developed in the Twentieth Century, principally in Western Europe but also in America and elsewhere. This is not the same thing as the ‘religious-like’ Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist political movements which adorned themselves in these symbols.
My suggestion is that these symbols should NOT pepper this series of articles, but should be used to give the flavour to those political figures and movements which relished in them.
--PeterBowing 08:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
NB the people who have made the template have done an excellent job.
Hmm... I'd have preferred it if the template was some shade of red, to link it with socialism. Guess it's just a personal preference and a slight touch of nostalgia for me, though. -- infinity0 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the person who removed the section on Marxist politics (on the grounds that all Marxism was politics anyway) made a serious mistake. Academic Marxism, infusing sociology, economics, history etc. is distinct from Marxist politics which is the study of the strategies of political movements.
The concept ‘surplus value’ for instance is principally an economic or perhaps sociological concept, but the concept ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ on the other hand has little to do with explaining the world ‘as it is’ but is concerned with political thinking.
Of course I accept that many of topics on the list that fall into more than one category in the menu, and obviously on many of these issues there is not a consensus among Marxists themselves.
I think perhaps this section should be removed seing as this template is meant to refer to the theory itself and not people such as Lenin or Adorno that interpretated it. Any views on this? Horses In The Sky talk contributions
Yes, but Lenin/Adorno did change or even "update"/"add" to Marxist philosophy greatly, whether you agree with them or not. W123 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Mao Zedong be on the list, seeing as he was a Marxist, created Maoism out of Marxism-Leninism and probably was the single most important person in history when it comes to spreading the Marxist ideas (even more so than Lenin and Stalin i believe).
A great many of these "Important Marxist" are hardly Important at all. Who the hell are a bunch of them? As a communist I don't want to include a list of White Professors who wrote books on marxism. I think this section should be scrapped. With the Exceptions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao. Che Guevara did not add anything to communist Theory, sure he's a fashionable Adventurist but an Important Marxist? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.46.68 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it problematic that a bunch of lesser known western philosophers have place over famous leaders like Stalin, Mao, Castro, and so on. Even if the output of a Castro, for instance, is less than say, Anton Pannekoek, that minor output has had a tremendously more important impact on the world than Anton Pannekoek, whose thought has never significantly influenced any workers movement anywhere. Similarly, on this view, Guy Debord is not a more important theorist than Kim il-Sung. His Juche ideology has an impact in the real world, whatever you think of it. So this is not addressing the question of "important" in the sense of "better", which can never be resolved, but "important" in the sense of practical consequences in the world.Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The template is concerned with Marxism as an intellectual/theoretical tradition, and the Marxists mentioned are important by virtue of their having made important and original contributions to Marxist theory. There is no question that political leaders like Stalin, Mao or Castro are far more well-known than Gramsci or Althusser, but the amount of influence this or that person who believed himself a Marxist has had on history is not relevant in this context. In other words, save those guys for the Communism or Marxism-Leninism templates. Hanshans23 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
For example, late nineteenth-century/early 20th century social democrat leaders like August Bebel or Wilhelm Liebknecht called themselves "Marxists", and undoubtedly they had an impact on the course of events in Germany in their lifetimes, but the important theoretical contributions of that movement came from Bernstein and Kautsky, so they are the figures that get mentioned here Hanshans23 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong on two counts. First, the title of the sidebar is "Marxism", not "Marxist Professors" or "Western Marxism" or "Marxism Intellectuals". Therefore, the "Prominent Figures" sub-category applies to Marxists such as Stalin, Mao, Kim il-Sung and others of that ilk. Second, even if we presume your arbitrary designation that "Marxism" means the Marxist "intellectual/theoretical tradition", figures such as Mao and Stalin are firmly lodged in the very heart of that tradition. Stalin's writings on linguistics and the national question have seen widespread adoption with Marxism, and were acknowledged even by his foes in the international communist movement. For his part, Mao's philosophical texts have had an impact far outside of the milieu of Chinese communism, eg. a generation of French philosophers, Zizek, and so on. So to say that a Situationist like Debord is more apropos to the Marxist "intellectual/theoretical tradition" than they is plainly false.
Please sit back and consider the opposing position being stated here before you just revert the edits of others. If you still insist on your position, at least be clear that (1) it is an ideological, not a factual position and (2) you need to explain how it nevertheless does not violate NPOV.Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can get with that argument. What I can't stomach is the belief held by the poster above that, bar Marx and Engels themselves, the only Marxists who are genuinely important are those that came to prominence through their involvement in military campaigns against capitalism. Hanshans23 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's about "Marxist theory" (& Marxist philosophy). Korsch and Debord are (important) philosophers, they're prominent to any serious study about Marxist philosophy (see the work of Balibar, for example), that's why they belong here. --Inbloom2 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
At last, the truth outs. So this stuff about "important" is nonsense. Fine. I'll grant that Stalin, Mao and Kim were dictators. Suppose they should not be on the list then. That is to say, to be on the list, you need to be a Theoretician first, and not some other type of thing. According to that logic, then, this will be a very small list indeed. Poor Antonio Gramsci - out, due to the fact he was General Secretary of the PCI - a prosaic politician. Pannekoek - out, since he was an astronomer. Engels will certainly be out, since he was an industrialist. Bernstein is of course out, since he was a politician. And so on.
Does this make any sense? Of course not, because it is absurd. Hence, you must admit that your personal ideological positions or moral qualms about "dictators" have nothing to do with whether or not they should be on the list or not. The only thing that should matter is their contributions to Marxist theory.
Also, the bit about the Stalinist link - I don't know if or how a link can Stalinist, but if a Stalinist told you to get off the train tracks, would you not listen, even if a train was coming? Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Any objections if I add a link to reification in the box? I think it's a pretty central concept in modern interpretations of Marx's thought. The article at this point in time is a little short, but I plan to expand it in a few minutes. Just thought I'd propose this, though. Deleuze 05:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I just saw this box on Western Marxism. You lot have done well here. Thanks for this. --Duncan 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
(strongly recommend an actual page for listing all recognized Marxists. Pivotal contributors to Marxism and immediately surronding currents should alone be displayed in Sidebar)
I add that I kept Gramsci only because he was a intellectual influence in the same vein as the others I kept, but obviously the purist and and simplest way is the Lenin-Trotsky-Marx-Engels + Luxembourg and Kautsky as the major heads of Marxism. Bernstein was a renegade by his own intention, but he was also a commanding head in this respect. Gramsci was not but he was still a more or less original contributor and more a less a standout influence on new currents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.189.211 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Kim belongs in the People section. Kim propounded what he called the Juche idea, which is the official ideology of the Workers Party of Korea. Some of the textual evidence for the claim that it is a development and/or re-conceiving of Marxist theory is as follows.
"The new outlook on the world established by the Juche philosophy does not deny the world outlook of dialectical materialism."
"The Juche view of the world that the world is dominated and transformed by man is inconceivable separately from the materialistic dialectical understanding of the essence of the objective material world and the general law of its motion."
"the world outlook of the materialistic dialectics is the premise for the Juche philosophy"
"Our scientists and people must study and follow the Juche philosophy, but they must also know the philosophical ideas of Marxism-Leninism."
Source: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/readb/108.pdf
Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibarrutidarruti (talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I changed the colour of the words in the table so that the words and links would not look like red links. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
