Talk:Marxist Socialism

Article Checklist for "Marxist Socialism"

Workgroup category or categories	Economics Workgroup, Politics Workgroup, Sociology Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Guru2001 12:25, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.) Please keep talking about CONTENT not presentation, views pro and contra visions can and must be part of any mature discussion. Abject rejection without proper alternatives are not academic in nature. Please try to construct a positive discussion. Robert Tito |  Talk  00:03, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

I did not intend to criticize the author of this article, but I see this article as having problems with presentation so severe as to make it difficult, if not impossible, to meaningfully discuss the content. The introduction of this article does not, in my opinion, provide an educated reader a coherent foundation to learn more about the subject of this article. I will attempt to restate my objections to the article as it is evolving in a more constructive way.

First, this article is poorly titled. The article is about a particular strain of thought in the economic analysis of capitalism (as is emphasised early in the article), but the title implies a theory of the function of a socialist society, or an analysis of the implementation of socialism. A better title might be "Marxian economic analysis".

Second, the second paragraph fails to clearly explain what status quo is being described - the status quo of existing political-economic systems, or the status quo of economic theory. It then links various "heterodox" economists to various disturbances and revolutionary movements without any explanation or context - it is not explained that the purpose of heterodox economists is to overthrow existing social arrangements, it is merely assumed. (This assumption is also factually incorrect.)

Third, once the article introduces Marx's Capital, rather than attempting to summarize how Capital contributed to economic thought, it immediately moves on to the improvements and extensions of Marx's theory, and starts describing the endlessly tedious factionalism of marxist scholars.

Suggested improvements:

• Rename article Marxian Economic Theory
• Throughout the article, maintain a clear distinction between analytic economic theory and proposals for change of existing social-economic arrangements
• After the initial introductory paragraph, explain briefly the state (or history) of economic theory prior to Marx's publication of Capital.
• In the paragraph which announces the publication of Capital, explain (as it does now) the publication history (Engels completing it, etc), then briefly summarize how it changes the state of economic theory. If the publication of Capital (rather than other works of Marx) is considered important to the history of movements for restructuring the economic order, then explain that briefly, too.

These suggestions are just that; the article author (as there is still just one) may choose to organize the beginning of the article in some other way. I do not have sufficient background in Marxian economics to undertake this work myself.

The work which has been added since my initial complaint appears to be proceeding in a much more organized fashion; if the beginning of this article can be cleaned up, the overall article should be quite an addition to Citizendium. Anthony Argyriou 01:19, 28 March 2007 (CDT)