![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Statements like "Althusser's suggestions have misled many people" do not indicate a neutral point of view. The article is exhaustive, if a little specialized, and that is fine, but it is arguing for the correctness of "value-form theory" against other interpretations, rather than summarizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.228.62 ( talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"In fact my philosophical knowledge of texts was rather limited. I was very familiar with Descartes and Malebranche, knew a little Spinoza, nothing about Aristotle, the Sophists and the Stoics, quite a lot about Plato and Pascal, nothing about Kant, a bit about Hegel, and finally a few passages of Marx which I had studied closely. My way of picking up and then really getting to know philosophy was legendary: I used to enjoy saying it was all done by 'hearsay' (the first confused form of knowledge according to Spinoza). I learnt from Jacques Martin who was cleverer than me by gleaning certain phrases in passing from my friends, and lastly from the seminar papers and essays of my own students. In the end, I naturally made it a point of honour and boasted that 'I learnt by hearsay'. This distinguished me quite markedly from all my university friends who were much better informed than me, and I used to repeat it by way of paradox and provocation, to arouse astonishment, incredulity, and admiration (!) in other people, to my great embarrassment and pride." - Louis Althusser, The future lasts forever: a memoir. New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 165-166.
In other words, Althusser himself boasted openly that his academic success was based on gossiping and plagiarism, and that in reality he knew very little about Marx at all. This, then, was the "scholar" hailed by the academics as being among "the most outstanding Marxist philosophers of the 20th century". User:Jurriaan 14 Feb 2013 21:55 (UTC)
Here is a relevant quote from Sebastian Timpanaro on Althusserianism:
“During the twentieth century, each time that a particular intellectual current has taken the upper hand in bourgeois culture - be it empirio-criticism, Bergsonism, Croceanism, phenomenology, neo-positivism or structuralism - certain Marxists have attempted to 'interpret' Marx's thought in such a way as to make it as homogeneous as possible with the predominant philosophy. This did not at all mean that there was not a sincere, and often fruitful, desire for discussion and mutual encounter. But it did mean a wish for the mutual encounter to take place on common ground; a wish that Marxism should appear as the philosophy which had already satisfied in advance the requirements of the most avant-garde elements of bourgeois culture, or which was at least able to incorporate them within itself without distorting itself. Above all else, it was feared that Marxism might appear to be a naive, simplistlic, and out-dated philosophy. This situation has continued into the present; indeed, the rapid pace with which cultural fashions succeed one another in the West forces certain Marxists to undergo ever more rapid metamorphoses. Althusser's structuralist-leaning Marxism represents, for the time being, the latest in these modernizing operations. No sooner have you begun to rejoice at the refutation of the 'humanist' and 'historicist' version of Marxism than you realize that it is bourgeois culture itself, in its advanced technocratic phase, that has repudiated humanism and historicism. Now that one cannot win anyone's ear unless one translates the most commonplace things into structuralist language, the task of Marxists appears to have become one of proving that Marxism is the best of all possible structuralisms." - Sebastian Timpanaro, On Materialism. London: Verso, 1975, p. 73-74. User:Jurriaan 4 March 2013 12:38 (UTC)
I think this sentence - "However this textual interpretation is rejected by Althusserian Marxists, because of their strict Marxist-Leninist division between the stage of the "unscientific Young Marx" (1818-1845, from birth to age 27) and the stage of the "scientific Mature Marx" (1846-1883, from age 28 to age 65)" - is marred by the unnecessarily contentious and sweepingly generalising insertion of the qualification "Marxist-Leninist". There have been many "marxist-leninists" (such as the late Roman Rosdolsky and the late Geoffrey Pilling to name but two) who would refute any such Althusserian claim of an epistemological break. See the section "Althusser and the early chapters of Capital" in chapter 4 - "The significance of the opening chapters" - of "Marx's ‘Capital’, Philosophy and Political Economy" by Geoffrey Pilling, Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1980 - available online at https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/ch04.htm#4.4 itihasi ( talk) 23:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
After reading through this absolutely byzantine article, it seems to me that there are numerous and multifarious NPOV issues, ranging from such statements as the Marxist response to Neo-Ricardian critique being "extraordinarily weak" to the flagrant Marxist apologia in sections 7 through 11. -- Latinikon ( talk) 00:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A large effort has been made in this article, to describe comprehensibly, fairly and concisely, and in a critical-sympathetic way, Marx’s idea plus half a century of Marxian, socialist and critical discussion since the late 1960s about the concept of the value-form of tradeable things, taking into consideration a great variety of positions and conclusions drawn by participants.
This concept has been a very important one in modern Marxian scholarship, and therefore it merits a substantive article. If I type in “value-form” in Google Books, I get 112 million hits. Okay, many of those entries have nothing to do with Marx. If I type in “Marx's theory of the value-form” in Google Books, I get more than half a million hits though. If I type in “value form analysis frankfurt school” in Google Scholar, I get more than 300,000 articles. There you go, a lot of scholars have written about this.
It is not an easy subject to write an article about, and an attempt has been made to describe in a logical way what it is about, what it involves, what the implications are, for the benefit of readers looking for an online introduction to the subject that is understandable, fair and balanced. There have been about 200,000 visits of the value-form article since the pilot in 2009, with very little criticism of its content. Care has been taken to reference claims as much as possible, which the reader can consult for him or herself. It is difficult to see though, how the article could contain “Marxist apologetics”, in particular because it contains a lot of criticism of Marxist positions, and is often hardly favourable to various Marxisms.
Section 7 is merely a reality check, which describes what happens, when monetized trade breaks down. According to many contemporary “value-form theorists”, value does not exist in the absence of money, but the point is made, that this is not very plausible in the light of the facts, that is all. It is not intended as an apology, merely as an empirical observation. Value is apparently not simply a “social projection” as some Marxists argue, which can be wiped out, simply by pulling the plug out of the projector (by destroying the monetary system and “smashing the state”). Section 8 raises the legitimate question of what is the alternative to value, capital and trade as a method for resource allocation, if there is one. If the value-form is the root of the evil, is there something which can replace it? What are the implications? Socialist societies tried to abolish private enterprise, commerce and exploitation, but if that did not succeed, is there something else which you can do? This is a legitimate question, and many people have discussed this, and have tried to find answers to the problem. The reason is, that they are still stuck with the problem, even if there is no solution for it so far.
Sections 9 and 10 describe documented attempts to apply the concept of the value-form to ecology and the situation of women. Section 11 describes what a so-called “erosion of the value-form” might refer to, if there is such a thing. Section 12 describes different conclusions that are drawn from the malfunctioning of value relations. The fact that the Marxist response to the neo-Ricardian was reportedly “weak”, is best shown by the fact that more and more economists since the 1980s abandoned Marx’s theory, in favour of heterodox economics. The concluding section notes briefly that there is currently also an argument on the table, that all the main theories of value mooted by economists are deficient, because none of them take into account the laws of thermodynamics. Whether you agree or disagree with that, that argument is there.
No doubt the article could be improved, but one hopes that if editors change it, they do this based on thorough knowledge of, and competence with the subject-matter and the literature, rather than simply running roughshod over a carefully prepared text on a whim, or out of a disgruntled feeling. Otherwise the article will not get better, but will get worse.
Many wiki articles have been ruined by editors who were simply not competent to edit them, out of a personal dislike for what was written. The result is a lot of wrecked articles, which continue to exist but which simply don’t make sense anymore, and don’t meet any standard of quality anymore. Which is an important reason why the number of people editing wikipedia has dwindled.
If you do a lot of work for free, and spend many days writing, to inform other people about a subject, while others just jump in and delete your work at a stroke of a pen, or introduce all kinds of faulty text, without even a proper discussion on the talk page, there is obviously no fruitful purpose anymore in editing wikipedia. Even so, if this article is wrecked, instead of improved, a copy of what was written remains on file, and people can still refer to it if they want. Nobody can say that a tremendous effort wasn’t made, to provide a truly informative article. Cambridge Optic ( talk) 21:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
as needed)
czar 13:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but regrettably I cannot do much with it. I’ll try to clarify a few things in ten points (I am not a young student anymore with plenty time on his hands, work and travel take up 60 hours of my time per week; I wrote this stuff for the benefit of readers around the world, in spare moments I had available).
(1) I have already published a text on Marxists.org, but this value-form article is not suitable material for that site (you can verify that yourself, with the site owner, if you like). I know that very well anyway, as academic editor, bookshop manager, scholar, and translator with 40 years international experience with this type of literature. This article is specifically written for, and aimed at, a general audience (because of the nature of the subject, it will probably not appeal to every Tom, Dick and Harry though - no wiki will appeal to every Tom Dick and Harry). As you can verify, I cite both Marxist and non-Marxist (or anti-Marxist) sources. (2) I have no idea what you mean by a “stanced narrative”. I provide an overview sketch of a discourse within Marxian and socialist circles, through half a century of discussion, stating a series of arguments and counterarguments, pro and con. It is fairly sober, and to the point, concentrating on the essentials of what is involved. The idea is just to get across what issues are involved in the subject. I could write a 400 page book on the topic, but that’s not wanted here. (3) The tone and tenor of the article is fairly neutral and evenhanded actually, though some things probably could be better stated, that’s always the case, and if people have suggestions in that regard they are welcome to state them on this talk page. There are hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles, and the tone and tenor of the articles varies a great deal, depending on the subjectmatter. Have a detailed look, for example, at the article on the Russian civil war. (4) The article is not about “self-critique” at all, but about the meaning of the concept of the value-form, its implications, and different interpretations of it. I had a lot of positive feedback for my voluntary effort, actually, and in part it inspired new articles. (5) The article does not lose focus, but brings issues in focus, and what position readers take on those issues is up to them. I do not expect people to agree with all of it, but I do provide sources for further research and discussion. It is just a “way in” to the topic. More than that a wiki cannot do. There is still another subsection to do on the price form which deals with the relationship of supply and demand vis-a-vis prices and values, but `i haven't had the opportunity yet to write it. (6) I have written all sorts of texts for all kinds of commercial and non-commercial clients in the past, but this article is specifically pitched to people who read this type of stuff, in an introductory sort of way. It provides plenty sources that readers can follow up. (7) I am not sure what you mean by “dialogical and exegetical arguments in which most Marxian and Marx-adjacent scholars find themselves entrapped.” Certainly, this article does involve exegesis, and it should. After all, it is about the meaning, implications and controversy about a concept. Marxian discourse IS a critical and self-critical discourse, yes. It does involve dialogue, and tries to get to the essence of the matter. If I have not achieved this, then let’s discuss that, and how to get there. As Imre Lakatos emphasized, criticism is a vital ingredient for the growth of knowledge. (8) You are not a wikipedian with a registered account, but a hacker who has gate-crashed into this talk page, to publish your displeasure and disgruntlement with the article to the world. The problem is, that while you make all sorts of gross accusations, insinuations and allegations, you provide not even one piece of evidence, no specifics, and no constructive suggestions to improve the article. This is all contrary to protocols. To improve the article, what we need is constructive, specific feedback that we can act on to improve things. (9) If you also have gripes about the TRPF article, you should report those on the TRPF talk page, and not here. This talk page is intended, according to wiki protocol, only for discussion about the improvement of this article. (10) While you complain vaguely about the tone and tenor of the article, you forget all about the tone and tenor of your own message. It is hardly friendly or appreciative of the effort of the writer, who has provided a lot of insight and information free of charge. Your approach actually violates wikipedia protocols for talk page discussion. The way it comes across is, that you have an anti-Marxist bias, you didn’t like the way the text was written, you want to voice your displeasure with the failure to provide the right flavour that you wanted in your milkshake, and now you would like to purge the article, or expel it to another site. Well everybody wants to rule the world, I suppose, but readers might well ask: who do you think you are? I may not be perfect, but at least I took the trouble to meet and/or discuss with many of the authors mentioned, and read the relevant texts over the years. I am happy to adjust the text, if there is a good reason for doing so, but I cannot act on vague and general accusations without specifics, and without acceptable reasons and evidence. Cambridge Optic ( talk) 19:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
FYI, Cambridge Optic has been blocked as a sock puppet of user:Jurriaan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has 423,016 bytes of markup - it is far too big. What is the best way to split it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
in a way, this is good, cause it is sort of the ur marxism wiki article - excessively long and incomprehensible I say let it stand to show students that nothing marxists ever say is clear, which tells you a lot about marxists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4700:1F70:AD27:A0EF:5981:62F4 ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 01:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Statements like "Althusser's suggestions have misled many people" do not indicate a neutral point of view. The article is exhaustive, if a little specialized, and that is fine, but it is arguing for the correctness of "value-form theory" against other interpretations, rather than summarizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.228.62 ( talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"In fact my philosophical knowledge of texts was rather limited. I was very familiar with Descartes and Malebranche, knew a little Spinoza, nothing about Aristotle, the Sophists and the Stoics, quite a lot about Plato and Pascal, nothing about Kant, a bit about Hegel, and finally a few passages of Marx which I had studied closely. My way of picking up and then really getting to know philosophy was legendary: I used to enjoy saying it was all done by 'hearsay' (the first confused form of knowledge according to Spinoza). I learnt from Jacques Martin who was cleverer than me by gleaning certain phrases in passing from my friends, and lastly from the seminar papers and essays of my own students. In the end, I naturally made it a point of honour and boasted that 'I learnt by hearsay'. This distinguished me quite markedly from all my university friends who were much better informed than me, and I used to repeat it by way of paradox and provocation, to arouse astonishment, incredulity, and admiration (!) in other people, to my great embarrassment and pride." - Louis Althusser, The future lasts forever: a memoir. New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 165-166.
In other words, Althusser himself boasted openly that his academic success was based on gossiping and plagiarism, and that in reality he knew very little about Marx at all. This, then, was the "scholar" hailed by the academics as being among "the most outstanding Marxist philosophers of the 20th century". User:Jurriaan 14 Feb 2013 21:55 (UTC)
Here is a relevant quote from Sebastian Timpanaro on Althusserianism:
“During the twentieth century, each time that a particular intellectual current has taken the upper hand in bourgeois culture - be it empirio-criticism, Bergsonism, Croceanism, phenomenology, neo-positivism or structuralism - certain Marxists have attempted to 'interpret' Marx's thought in such a way as to make it as homogeneous as possible with the predominant philosophy. This did not at all mean that there was not a sincere, and often fruitful, desire for discussion and mutual encounter. But it did mean a wish for the mutual encounter to take place on common ground; a wish that Marxism should appear as the philosophy which had already satisfied in advance the requirements of the most avant-garde elements of bourgeois culture, or which was at least able to incorporate them within itself without distorting itself. Above all else, it was feared that Marxism might appear to be a naive, simplistlic, and out-dated philosophy. This situation has continued into the present; indeed, the rapid pace with which cultural fashions succeed one another in the West forces certain Marxists to undergo ever more rapid metamorphoses. Althusser's structuralist-leaning Marxism represents, for the time being, the latest in these modernizing operations. No sooner have you begun to rejoice at the refutation of the 'humanist' and 'historicist' version of Marxism than you realize that it is bourgeois culture itself, in its advanced technocratic phase, that has repudiated humanism and historicism. Now that one cannot win anyone's ear unless one translates the most commonplace things into structuralist language, the task of Marxists appears to have become one of proving that Marxism is the best of all possible structuralisms." - Sebastian Timpanaro, On Materialism. London: Verso, 1975, p. 73-74. User:Jurriaan 4 March 2013 12:38 (UTC)
I think this sentence - "However this textual interpretation is rejected by Althusserian Marxists, because of their strict Marxist-Leninist division between the stage of the "unscientific Young Marx" (1818-1845, from birth to age 27) and the stage of the "scientific Mature Marx" (1846-1883, from age 28 to age 65)" - is marred by the unnecessarily contentious and sweepingly generalising insertion of the qualification "Marxist-Leninist". There have been many "marxist-leninists" (such as the late Roman Rosdolsky and the late Geoffrey Pilling to name but two) who would refute any such Althusserian claim of an epistemological break. See the section "Althusser and the early chapters of Capital" in chapter 4 - "The significance of the opening chapters" - of "Marx's ‘Capital’, Philosophy and Political Economy" by Geoffrey Pilling, Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1980 - available online at https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/ch04.htm#4.4 itihasi ( talk) 23:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
After reading through this absolutely byzantine article, it seems to me that there are numerous and multifarious NPOV issues, ranging from such statements as the Marxist response to Neo-Ricardian critique being "extraordinarily weak" to the flagrant Marxist apologia in sections 7 through 11. -- Latinikon ( talk) 00:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A large effort has been made in this article, to describe comprehensibly, fairly and concisely, and in a critical-sympathetic way, Marx’s idea plus half a century of Marxian, socialist and critical discussion since the late 1960s about the concept of the value-form of tradeable things, taking into consideration a great variety of positions and conclusions drawn by participants.
This concept has been a very important one in modern Marxian scholarship, and therefore it merits a substantive article. If I type in “value-form” in Google Books, I get 112 million hits. Okay, many of those entries have nothing to do with Marx. If I type in “Marx's theory of the value-form” in Google Books, I get more than half a million hits though. If I type in “value form analysis frankfurt school” in Google Scholar, I get more than 300,000 articles. There you go, a lot of scholars have written about this.
It is not an easy subject to write an article about, and an attempt has been made to describe in a logical way what it is about, what it involves, what the implications are, for the benefit of readers looking for an online introduction to the subject that is understandable, fair and balanced. There have been about 200,000 visits of the value-form article since the pilot in 2009, with very little criticism of its content. Care has been taken to reference claims as much as possible, which the reader can consult for him or herself. It is difficult to see though, how the article could contain “Marxist apologetics”, in particular because it contains a lot of criticism of Marxist positions, and is often hardly favourable to various Marxisms.
Section 7 is merely a reality check, which describes what happens, when monetized trade breaks down. According to many contemporary “value-form theorists”, value does not exist in the absence of money, but the point is made, that this is not very plausible in the light of the facts, that is all. It is not intended as an apology, merely as an empirical observation. Value is apparently not simply a “social projection” as some Marxists argue, which can be wiped out, simply by pulling the plug out of the projector (by destroying the monetary system and “smashing the state”). Section 8 raises the legitimate question of what is the alternative to value, capital and trade as a method for resource allocation, if there is one. If the value-form is the root of the evil, is there something which can replace it? What are the implications? Socialist societies tried to abolish private enterprise, commerce and exploitation, but if that did not succeed, is there something else which you can do? This is a legitimate question, and many people have discussed this, and have tried to find answers to the problem. The reason is, that they are still stuck with the problem, even if there is no solution for it so far.
Sections 9 and 10 describe documented attempts to apply the concept of the value-form to ecology and the situation of women. Section 11 describes what a so-called “erosion of the value-form” might refer to, if there is such a thing. Section 12 describes different conclusions that are drawn from the malfunctioning of value relations. The fact that the Marxist response to the neo-Ricardian was reportedly “weak”, is best shown by the fact that more and more economists since the 1980s abandoned Marx’s theory, in favour of heterodox economics. The concluding section notes briefly that there is currently also an argument on the table, that all the main theories of value mooted by economists are deficient, because none of them take into account the laws of thermodynamics. Whether you agree or disagree with that, that argument is there.
No doubt the article could be improved, but one hopes that if editors change it, they do this based on thorough knowledge of, and competence with the subject-matter and the literature, rather than simply running roughshod over a carefully prepared text on a whim, or out of a disgruntled feeling. Otherwise the article will not get better, but will get worse.
Many wiki articles have been ruined by editors who were simply not competent to edit them, out of a personal dislike for what was written. The result is a lot of wrecked articles, which continue to exist but which simply don’t make sense anymore, and don’t meet any standard of quality anymore. Which is an important reason why the number of people editing wikipedia has dwindled.
If you do a lot of work for free, and spend many days writing, to inform other people about a subject, while others just jump in and delete your work at a stroke of a pen, or introduce all kinds of faulty text, without even a proper discussion on the talk page, there is obviously no fruitful purpose anymore in editing wikipedia. Even so, if this article is wrecked, instead of improved, a copy of what was written remains on file, and people can still refer to it if they want. Nobody can say that a tremendous effort wasn’t made, to provide a truly informative article. Cambridge Optic ( talk) 21:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
as needed)
czar 13:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but regrettably I cannot do much with it. I’ll try to clarify a few things in ten points (I am not a young student anymore with plenty time on his hands, work and travel take up 60 hours of my time per week; I wrote this stuff for the benefit of readers around the world, in spare moments I had available).
(1) I have already published a text on Marxists.org, but this value-form article is not suitable material for that site (you can verify that yourself, with the site owner, if you like). I know that very well anyway, as academic editor, bookshop manager, scholar, and translator with 40 years international experience with this type of literature. This article is specifically written for, and aimed at, a general audience (because of the nature of the subject, it will probably not appeal to every Tom, Dick and Harry though - no wiki will appeal to every Tom Dick and Harry). As you can verify, I cite both Marxist and non-Marxist (or anti-Marxist) sources. (2) I have no idea what you mean by a “stanced narrative”. I provide an overview sketch of a discourse within Marxian and socialist circles, through half a century of discussion, stating a series of arguments and counterarguments, pro and con. It is fairly sober, and to the point, concentrating on the essentials of what is involved. The idea is just to get across what issues are involved in the subject. I could write a 400 page book on the topic, but that’s not wanted here. (3) The tone and tenor of the article is fairly neutral and evenhanded actually, though some things probably could be better stated, that’s always the case, and if people have suggestions in that regard they are welcome to state them on this talk page. There are hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles, and the tone and tenor of the articles varies a great deal, depending on the subjectmatter. Have a detailed look, for example, at the article on the Russian civil war. (4) The article is not about “self-critique” at all, but about the meaning of the concept of the value-form, its implications, and different interpretations of it. I had a lot of positive feedback for my voluntary effort, actually, and in part it inspired new articles. (5) The article does not lose focus, but brings issues in focus, and what position readers take on those issues is up to them. I do not expect people to agree with all of it, but I do provide sources for further research and discussion. It is just a “way in” to the topic. More than that a wiki cannot do. There is still another subsection to do on the price form which deals with the relationship of supply and demand vis-a-vis prices and values, but `i haven't had the opportunity yet to write it. (6) I have written all sorts of texts for all kinds of commercial and non-commercial clients in the past, but this article is specifically pitched to people who read this type of stuff, in an introductory sort of way. It provides plenty sources that readers can follow up. (7) I am not sure what you mean by “dialogical and exegetical arguments in which most Marxian and Marx-adjacent scholars find themselves entrapped.” Certainly, this article does involve exegesis, and it should. After all, it is about the meaning, implications and controversy about a concept. Marxian discourse IS a critical and self-critical discourse, yes. It does involve dialogue, and tries to get to the essence of the matter. If I have not achieved this, then let’s discuss that, and how to get there. As Imre Lakatos emphasized, criticism is a vital ingredient for the growth of knowledge. (8) You are not a wikipedian with a registered account, but a hacker who has gate-crashed into this talk page, to publish your displeasure and disgruntlement with the article to the world. The problem is, that while you make all sorts of gross accusations, insinuations and allegations, you provide not even one piece of evidence, no specifics, and no constructive suggestions to improve the article. This is all contrary to protocols. To improve the article, what we need is constructive, specific feedback that we can act on to improve things. (9) If you also have gripes about the TRPF article, you should report those on the TRPF talk page, and not here. This talk page is intended, according to wiki protocol, only for discussion about the improvement of this article. (10) While you complain vaguely about the tone and tenor of the article, you forget all about the tone and tenor of your own message. It is hardly friendly or appreciative of the effort of the writer, who has provided a lot of insight and information free of charge. Your approach actually violates wikipedia protocols for talk page discussion. The way it comes across is, that you have an anti-Marxist bias, you didn’t like the way the text was written, you want to voice your displeasure with the failure to provide the right flavour that you wanted in your milkshake, and now you would like to purge the article, or expel it to another site. Well everybody wants to rule the world, I suppose, but readers might well ask: who do you think you are? I may not be perfect, but at least I took the trouble to meet and/or discuss with many of the authors mentioned, and read the relevant texts over the years. I am happy to adjust the text, if there is a good reason for doing so, but I cannot act on vague and general accusations without specifics, and without acceptable reasons and evidence. Cambridge Optic ( talk) 19:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
FYI, Cambridge Optic has been blocked as a sock puppet of user:Jurriaan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has 423,016 bytes of markup - it is far too big. What is the best way to split it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
in a way, this is good, cause it is sort of the ur marxism wiki article - excessively long and incomprehensible I say let it stand to show students that nothing marxists ever say is clear, which tells you a lot about marxists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4700:1F70:AD27:A0EF:5981:62F4 ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 01:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)