Talk:Karl Marx: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Line 90: Line 90:


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. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:39, 21 October 2007 (CDT)
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. --[[User:Larry Sanger|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. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:01, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 11:01, 21 October 2007

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Works [?]
Timelines [?]
Addendum [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition 19th century philosopher and economist. Creator of a theoretical foundation for Communism. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Philosophy, Politics and History [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

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)