This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Das Kapital article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Das Kapital →
Capital (book) –
WP:CONSISTENT with
Capital, Volume I;
Capital, Volume II;
Capital, Volume III; and the
Capital, Volume IV redirect. It's completely bizarre that we're using conflicting titles for multiple articles about the same work. I'm suggesting the English titles per
WP:USEENGLISH, but don't feel strongly about it; I suppose it's possible the
WP:COMMONNAME is actually Das Kapital, and the other three articles should move instead. However, it seems to me that we might actually consider a merge, or at least selective merging and some cleanup; the Vol. I–III articles are looking more and more like
WP:CONTENTFORKs rather than
WP:SPINOFFs. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
12:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Footnotes 1, 2, and 3 link to the German editions of volumes 1 to 3, at www.e-rara.ch. Footnote 3 links to the third volume, part one, but there is no link (on that page or elsewhere) to the third volume, part two. However, it appears this (volume 3 part 2) can be downloaded from here: [1]. Should Footnote 3 be amended to reflect that volume 3 is in two parts with a link to each part?
Mgchristensen ( talk) 04:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
References
"The foreign editions of Capital. Critique of Political Economy (1867) by Karl Marx include a Russian translation by the revolutionary socialist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876)."
That is not the case. Bakunin did start the translation to Russian, but according to Resis quoting Marx and James Guillaume, he never went far. Bakunin praised Das Kapital and wished for it to be translated to French, but he was not its translator to Russian. OliveiraCris ( talk) 21:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 21:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
– Previous move discussions Special:Permalink/1146764052#Requested move 23 May 2018, Special:Permalink/1146764052#Requested move 22 November 2019, and Special:Permalink/1071069187#Requested move 6 December 2019 generally relied on anecdotal evidence that "Das Kapital" is the WP:COMMONNAME which I contest here. While I agree that parenthetical disambiguation isn't beautiful, neither is the fact that "Das Kapital" is used for Das Kapital, Volume I when that name is used at a ratio of one to fifty per Google scholar.
Google ngram shows that "Marx's Capital" is used more often than "Marx's Das Kapital" at a ratio of three to one. [1] As does Google scholar at a ratio of six to one. ( "Marx's Capital" vs "Marx's Das Kapital") Google search hits finds usage at a ratio of seventeen to one. ( "Marx's Capital" vs "Marx's Das Kapital")
Per Google scholar:
And Google ngram finds no results at all for "Das Kapital Volume I/II/III", as opposed to "Capital Volume I/II/III". ( [8]) I've edited this section slightly to make it more clear. :3 F4U ( they /it) 19:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
It was noted previously that Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Das Kapital", however I'd like to point out that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses "Capital". :3 F4U ( they /it) 18:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC) @ SMcCandlish, Galobtter, RL0919, Necrothesp, Dekimasu, ThessalonianR, BD2412, and Gonnym: Pinging those who have previously contributed to these discussions :3 F4U ( they /it) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems crazy to me that this article doesn't touch on the impact of one of the most socially impactful works in recorded history. The article for Harry Potter has a "Legacy" subheader overviewing all the fanfiction those books inspired, but nothing for a book that inspired social movements, political parties, economic reconfiguration, societal revolutions, assassinations, or civil wars in nearly every country on the face of the earth over two centuries?
Imagine if the article for the 95 Theses didn't mention the development of Protestantism. Bit of a head-scratcher. Jhodders ( talk) 22:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The opening has the sentence "Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production in contrast to classical political economists such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill."
I don't think Marx was in contrast to them, any more than any of them were to each other. In fact, Marx was in many ways a faithful follower to Ricardo in many matters, particularly value, and our modern neoclassical economists are the ones who are in contrast to David Ricardo on many things (although not free trade, where they tend to agree with Ricardo).
I am changing those "in contrast to" words. I am not sure what the exact wording should be, but saying Marx is in contrast to Ricardo makes no sense, as he was a more faithful follower to Ricardo than modern economists are. I don't know what the exact words should be, but they should not be in contrast to, against and so forth.
I am also changing a repeat of this language further down the page.
In Book 1 of Capital, Chapter 1, Marx says "Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists..." with a footnote referencing Ricardo, and Marx goes on to use Robin Crusoe as a metaphor and quotes Ricardo's use of Crusoe in a footnote. This is just the beginning of Marx's references to Ricardo, who he often followed, although he sometimes diverged from him.
Describing Marx's relationship to his predecessors is complex, as he is, in his mind, sometimes following them, sometimes clarifying and adding to them, and sometimes contrasting them. To use terms Marx and Engels use, this is not an anti-thesis to the theses of previous economists, but a synthesis of them. Minimax Regret ( talk) 15:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I was doing some reading and happened upon the CPSU's introduction to their version of Volume IV/Theories of Surplus Value by karl Marx. It claims that the version by Kautsky, mentioned in this article on the Works, bastardized the original manuscripts and left out a lot of details, which their publication corrects. I have not read either version of Volume IV, so I cannot confirm whether or not the accusations in the preface are true (I suspect though that they likely are,) but in any case, it seemed like important information to include in the article, given this is essentially the only place on English Wikipedia which mentions anything about Volume IV, and a separate publication of it which is extremely different seems like it would be necessary to include. Thus I made an edit adding that the CPSU's publication exists and that it claims to be "more correct."
If anyone who has worked on this article has any further knowledge of the topic of what "Volume IV" precisely is, and how accurate a term that even is given that it seems only Lenin and Engels reference it that way even if it was intended to be a finishing work to Volumes I-III, I would appreciate a review of my edit and of the CPSU's preface to their version for accuracy's sake. Thanks AquaticOnWiki ( talk) 02:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Das Kapital article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Das Kapital →
Capital (book) –
WP:CONSISTENT with
Capital, Volume I;
Capital, Volume II;
Capital, Volume III; and the
Capital, Volume IV redirect. It's completely bizarre that we're using conflicting titles for multiple articles about the same work. I'm suggesting the English titles per
WP:USEENGLISH, but don't feel strongly about it; I suppose it's possible the
WP:COMMONNAME is actually Das Kapital, and the other three articles should move instead. However, it seems to me that we might actually consider a merge, or at least selective merging and some cleanup; the Vol. I–III articles are looking more and more like
WP:CONTENTFORKs rather than
WP:SPINOFFs. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
12:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Footnotes 1, 2, and 3 link to the German editions of volumes 1 to 3, at www.e-rara.ch. Footnote 3 links to the third volume, part one, but there is no link (on that page or elsewhere) to the third volume, part two. However, it appears this (volume 3 part 2) can be downloaded from here: [1]. Should Footnote 3 be amended to reflect that volume 3 is in two parts with a link to each part?
Mgchristensen ( talk) 04:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
References
"The foreign editions of Capital. Critique of Political Economy (1867) by Karl Marx include a Russian translation by the revolutionary socialist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876)."
That is not the case. Bakunin did start the translation to Russian, but according to Resis quoting Marx and James Guillaume, he never went far. Bakunin praised Das Kapital and wished for it to be translated to French, but he was not its translator to Russian. OliveiraCris ( talk) 21:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 21:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
– Previous move discussions Special:Permalink/1146764052#Requested move 23 May 2018, Special:Permalink/1146764052#Requested move 22 November 2019, and Special:Permalink/1071069187#Requested move 6 December 2019 generally relied on anecdotal evidence that "Das Kapital" is the WP:COMMONNAME which I contest here. While I agree that parenthetical disambiguation isn't beautiful, neither is the fact that "Das Kapital" is used for Das Kapital, Volume I when that name is used at a ratio of one to fifty per Google scholar.
Google ngram shows that "Marx's Capital" is used more often than "Marx's Das Kapital" at a ratio of three to one. [1] As does Google scholar at a ratio of six to one. ( "Marx's Capital" vs "Marx's Das Kapital") Google search hits finds usage at a ratio of seventeen to one. ( "Marx's Capital" vs "Marx's Das Kapital")
Per Google scholar:
And Google ngram finds no results at all for "Das Kapital Volume I/II/III", as opposed to "Capital Volume I/II/III". ( [8]) I've edited this section slightly to make it more clear. :3 F4U ( they /it) 19:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
It was noted previously that Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Das Kapital", however I'd like to point out that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses "Capital". :3 F4U ( they /it) 18:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC) @ SMcCandlish, Galobtter, RL0919, Necrothesp, Dekimasu, ThessalonianR, BD2412, and Gonnym: Pinging those who have previously contributed to these discussions :3 F4U ( they /it) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems crazy to me that this article doesn't touch on the impact of one of the most socially impactful works in recorded history. The article for Harry Potter has a "Legacy" subheader overviewing all the fanfiction those books inspired, but nothing for a book that inspired social movements, political parties, economic reconfiguration, societal revolutions, assassinations, or civil wars in nearly every country on the face of the earth over two centuries?
Imagine if the article for the 95 Theses didn't mention the development of Protestantism. Bit of a head-scratcher. Jhodders ( talk) 22:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The opening has the sentence "Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production in contrast to classical political economists such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill."
I don't think Marx was in contrast to them, any more than any of them were to each other. In fact, Marx was in many ways a faithful follower to Ricardo in many matters, particularly value, and our modern neoclassical economists are the ones who are in contrast to David Ricardo on many things (although not free trade, where they tend to agree with Ricardo).
I am changing those "in contrast to" words. I am not sure what the exact wording should be, but saying Marx is in contrast to Ricardo makes no sense, as he was a more faithful follower to Ricardo than modern economists are. I don't know what the exact words should be, but they should not be in contrast to, against and so forth.
I am also changing a repeat of this language further down the page.
In Book 1 of Capital, Chapter 1, Marx says "Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists..." with a footnote referencing Ricardo, and Marx goes on to use Robin Crusoe as a metaphor and quotes Ricardo's use of Crusoe in a footnote. This is just the beginning of Marx's references to Ricardo, who he often followed, although he sometimes diverged from him.
Describing Marx's relationship to his predecessors is complex, as he is, in his mind, sometimes following them, sometimes clarifying and adding to them, and sometimes contrasting them. To use terms Marx and Engels use, this is not an anti-thesis to the theses of previous economists, but a synthesis of them. Minimax Regret ( talk) 15:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I was doing some reading and happened upon the CPSU's introduction to their version of Volume IV/Theories of Surplus Value by karl Marx. It claims that the version by Kautsky, mentioned in this article on the Works, bastardized the original manuscripts and left out a lot of details, which their publication corrects. I have not read either version of Volume IV, so I cannot confirm whether or not the accusations in the preface are true (I suspect though that they likely are,) but in any case, it seemed like important information to include in the article, given this is essentially the only place on English Wikipedia which mentions anything about Volume IV, and a separate publication of it which is extremely different seems like it would be necessary to include. Thus I made an edit adding that the CPSU's publication exists and that it claims to be "more correct."
If anyone who has worked on this article has any further knowledge of the topic of what "Volume IV" precisely is, and how accurate a term that even is given that it seems only Lenin and Engels reference it that way even if it was intended to be a finishing work to Volumes I-III, I would appreciate a review of my edit and of the CPSU's preface to their version for accuracy's sake. Thanks AquaticOnWiki ( talk) 02:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)