Talk:Criticism of Marxism

Adding to Article

Bertrand Russell, Thomas Sowell etc

I would like to add relevant, well-sourced material from Bertrand Russell, Thomas Sowell and other well-known scholars. Any objections?

Marx has been accused of harboring racist views.[1]W. O. Henderson and W. H. Chaloner, Encounter July 1975, pages 18-23</ref>

Economist Thomas Sowell has written: What Marx accomplished was to produce such a comprehensive, dramatic, and fascinating vision that it could withstand innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations, and moral revulsions at its effects. The Marxian vision took the overwhelming complexity of the real world and made the parts fall into place, in a way that was intellectually exhilarating and conferred such a sense of moral superiority that opponents could be simply labelled and dismissed as moral lepers or blind reactionaries. Marxism was – and remains – a mighty instrument for the acquisition and maintenance of political power. Sowell, Thomas Marxism Philosophy and Economics (William Morrow 1985) p. 218

Bertrand Russell wrote: My objections to Marx are of two sorts: one, that he was muddle-headed; and the other, that his thinking was almost entirely inspired by hatred.[2]

Bertrand Russell has criticized Marx's notion of progress: There goes with this limitation to terrestrial affairs a readiness to believe in progress as a universal law. This readiness characterized the nineteenth century, and existed in Marx as much as in his contemporaries. It is only because of the belief in the inevitability of progress that Marx thought it possible to dispense with ethical considerations. If Socialism was coming, it must be an improvement. He would have readily admitted that it would not seem to be an improvement to landowners or capitalists, but that only showed that they were out of harmony with the dialectic movement of the time. Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify. Broadly speaking, all the elements in Marx's philosophy which are derived from Hegel are unscientific, in the sense that there is no reason whatever to suppose them true.[3]

Please be specific if you have objections. Thanks!Jimjilin (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that editors have called for discussion of Marx's racism/anti-Semitism. I hope no one wants to cover up this aspect of Marx's thought.Jimjilin (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no "cover-up" or conspiracy to hide "aspects" of Marx's thoughts. But your cherry picking of quotes isn't helpful to anyone nor beneficial in constructing a encyclopedia without giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain arguments. This has been discussed already before, the arguments haven't changed. It has already been pointed out that your attempted inclusions are very much wp:pointy and appear to be agenda driven. Gain consensus here before you attempt to make anymore changes instead of edit warring. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Russell's criticism of Marxism should be in this «Criticism of Marxism» article. Adding it is not «pointy». But we could make it shorter maybe and be careful to avoid «cherry picking». Spumuq (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"My objections to Marx are of two sorts: one, that he was muddle-headed; and the other, that his thinking was almost entirely inspired by hatred." How is this not pointy? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the second quote, how is it substantially different from the Karl Popper criticism that is already included? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx, please stop the personal attack and stick to the facts. The article "cherry picks" from Ravi Batra, Karl Popper, and J.K. Galbraith, and Nobuo Okishio among many others. Should we delete all these quotes?! I have not quoted insignificant fringe figures only well-known academics. I have fairly represented their views. If you have further objections please be more specific. Thanks!Jimjilin (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It does cherry pick and it is a problem. The solution isn't to add even more to muddle it up, there needs to be a synthesis. Your edits are agenda driven (this has been pointed out by a neutral and non-involved editor whose assistance you sought out) and you constantly engage in edit warring. When consensus is against you, you go ahead and make the changes anyways and constantly ignore the many reasons given in the consensus that was against you, often stating there is an attempt by editors to "suppress" opinions and information. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me make my objections to the inclusion more clear. The subject of the article here is "Criticisms of Marxism". The article is not WP:QUOTEFARM of criticisms. What is important is identifying the most notable substantial criticisms of Marxism, not merely stating someone somewhere had once stated something negative about Marxism. The argument about the individuals quoted not being insignificant or fringe figures is irrelevant. It is probably safe to assume that most major continental and analytical philosophers have contributed a quote or two in regards to their opinion on Marxism, this article is NOT to be a collection of those. This article needs to summarize the most notable substantial criticisms. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, Jimjilin, it had been pointed out in the other topic you attempted to sneak these quotes in where there was a clear consensus against you. While this is a different article, one of the reasons the sources you used don't get inclusion is because they aren't reliable secondary sources. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Russell's criticism of Marxism should be in this «Criticism of Marxism» article, adding it is not inherently «pointy» nor «cherrypicking». Bertrand Russell is a reliable source for Bertrand Russell's criticism of Marxism. Spumuq (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You just repeated what you wrote above ignoring my concerns against it. You haven't stated why you believe Russell's criticism deserves inclusion. Also, the pointy aspect of this is in fact Jimjilin has attempted to post this elsewhere and consensus had been overwhelmingly against the inclusion. One of the issues (amongst many) is the sources that are used. The Russell quote you feel should be included is provided for by a web forum, which is NOT a reliable secondary source. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Spumuq, we can make Russell's criticism shorter if you like.Jimjilin (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

1) I can link to Russell's book if you prefer. Any of my other sources unreliable? 2) I am not part of a conspiracy to "sneak" in quotes. lol 3) Why do you feel my inclusions are neither notable nor substantial? 4) Please don't accuse others of being "agenda driven" just because they disagree with you. 5) The article "cherry picks" from Ravi Batra, Karl Popper, and J.K. Galbraith, and Nobuo Okishio among many others. Should we delete all these quotes?! 6) Editor Spumuq wrote Russell's criticism of Marxism should be in this article. Please stop going against consensus.Jimjilin (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You didn't respond to anything I posted. As you never do.

1) Yes, your other sources are unreliable. This has been mentioned to you before a number of times by other editors, as usual, you chose to ignore them and push your agenda. 2) Another example of you not actually responding to actual concerns. Where do I accuse you of being part of a conspiracy? You are wasting editors time with this nonsense. 3) This one has already been explained above. 4) Once again, it wasn't only myself who noted your "agenda driven" inclusion, that concern has also been expressed by someone who you independently sought help from, such as here. 5) As I stated above, yes. It should be cleaned up quite a bit. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is okay: Bertrand Russell has criticized Marx's belief in progress as a universal law. Russell stated "It is only because of the belief in the inevitability of progress that Marx thought it possible to dispense with ethical considerations." and "Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify. Broadly speaking, all the elements in Marx's philosophy which are derived from Hegel are unscientific, in the sense that there is no reason whatever to suppose them true. Russell, Bertrand History of Western Philosophy Simon and Schuster pp.788-789Jimjilin (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That is good.Spumuq (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Roland R you removed it and you said «This is STILL contested by several editors, and supported by none. Please gain talk-page consensus before again adding this text.».

But you did not comment here and I agreed with Jimjilin that it should be added. I know I am less experienced than you but please don't pretend that I don't exist. Spumuq (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have discussed this, in great detail, on other pages, as have other editors. Xcuref1endx has opposed, and discussed this in detail, here. You have added nothing except a simple statement of support. Jimjilin has been trying to shoehorn an identical text into several articles, and has been opposed by many editors each time. We don't need to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam on every page where he again tries to add this text, and his behaviour by now is verging on the vexatious and disruptive, whichj could lead to editing sanctions. If you have a substantive contribution to make to this discussion, please do so; but please also note that an overwhelming consensus of editors (eleven, by my last count) has opposed this edit at one or another of the articles where its addition has been proposed. RolandR (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

RolandR, this is the first time I added this specific material to a Wikipedia page. Your phantom 11 editors have not in any way responded to this specific addition. I have not tried to add this material to "several articles", I tried to add something similar to only one other article. You are also mistaken when you claim my addition is "supported by none". I have responded to the concerns of two editors. Please stop deleting additions without specific objections. Please stop violating Wikipedia policy. You are engaged in disruptive editing.Jimjilin (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin, you responded to no concerns of any editors. You frequently ignore or misread comments and then force people to respond to nonsense or unrelated issues as you engage in an edit war. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have responded to your concern! You said the Russell quote source "is NOT a reliable secondary source" and I changed it. Again your criticism looks like a blanket denunciation. How about some more specific objections?Jimjilin (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote above, you will find my more specific objections. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx, why do you feel the opinions of Ravi Batra, and J.K. Galbraith, and Nobuo Okishio are notable and substantial while the opinion of Russell is not notable and insubstantial?Jimjilin (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Read two things. Read what I wrote above where I wrote they were problematic as well and then read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your inability to understand the points already addressed and respond appropriately is disruptive and I am tired of repeating myself. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have examined your views with great attention Xcuref1endx, and amidst the ad hominems I noticed your focus on finding "the most notable substantial criticisms". I am looking for the same thing. Can you hear my question: Why do you feel the opinions of Ravi Batra, and J.K. Galbraith, and Nobuo Okishio are notable and substantial while the opinion of Russell is not notable and insubstantial?Jimjilin (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

See above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't think ad hominem means what you think it means. You have demonstrated your inability to comprehend other users input (or willfully ignore them). Hence making me repeat myself numerous times here. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx, you have for some reason proclaimed the Russell quote not a "notable substantial criticism" of Marxism. You also accuse me of "cherry-picking" so I guess you feel the quote does not fairly represent Russell's views. Why do you feel that way? Your mere assertion does not prove your case. Can you provide a counter quote wherein Russell says something favorable about Marx? Please stop name-calling and work towards a consensus.Jimjilin (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It is up to someone who wants to add something that it is significant, not the other way around. If something is insignificant, generally there will not be a source that says it is insignificant, but there will be an absence of sources that says it is. TFD (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Russell's criticism of marxism is significant, many sources have reported on it. Spumuq (talq) 13:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

this feels like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Bertrand Russell is reliable, notable, and revelant to the article criticism of marxism which would include his criticism of Marxism, no cherries required. i think the editor who mentioned wp:pointy is confused, If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" or "irrelevant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion. do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant". adding material by relevant notable source is not being pointy. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Few sources have reported Russell's comments. They appear only in books about Russell rather than books about Marxism. Russell wrote about many issues, and I do not see you looking to add his comments against a range of articles. TFD (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

While I find the discussion above to be interesting and good reading, I really don’t believe that a strong enough argument against the inclusion of the remarks/observations by Mr. Bertrand Russell is being made. This article is, after all, about the “Criticisms of Marxism”, not the “Mitigation of the Criticisms of Marxism”. Hammersbach (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right, the article is about "Criticisms of Marxism". Which means the criticisms themselves are the subject and require notability, not the people making them. Otherwise, as I pointed out above, due to Marx's influence, most all notable philosophers, economists, and intellectuals in general of the 20th century have offered words of criticism to Marxism, this article is not to be used as a quote farm to house every negative or positive statement made about Marxism. What must be identified for inclusion in this article are that the criticisms are notable in relation to Marxism, not by who is making the criticism. This has been pointed out over and over, yet some editors insists on its inclusion merely because Bertrand Russell had made the comment. There must be reliable secondary sources and its weight measured to be included. I pointed this out, TFD has pointed this, and Jimjilin had already brought this very topic up here where (s)he failed to get consensus or address the concerns of the other editors. The need for the quote to be notable doesn't become less relevant when the article changes. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Russell's belief that Marx was "muddle-headed" was based on his opinion that Marx used Malthusian principles and failed to apply surplus value to manufactured goods, that it falsely saw class struggle as the motivation for historical events and that dialectical materialism was "merely mythology." These are all interesting points and the last two are covered in the article. Reducing rational argument to a sound bite - he was "muddle-headed" - falls short of the intellectual rigor one expects in articles.

Darkstar1st, I had trouble following Russell's comments on Malthus and Ricardo, but then I had not read Russell's earlier essay. Would you be so kind as to explain it for me? TFD (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I read the above two comments I am finding it increasing difficult not to come to the conclusion that the goal is to obviate criticism of Marxism rather than to inform curious readers. To wit, Xcuref1endx states that, "most all notable philosophers, economists, and intellectuals...have offered words of criticism to Marxism". If this is indeed the case, why would we not then include these "words" commensurate with this "weight measured"? TFD counsels against including the quote by pointing out that two of the three criticisms that Russell makes are already included in the article. However, since the third is not would not then this quote's inclusion be an enhancement to the article? Hammersbach (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In a serious article, criticism added would explain the basis of the criticism, rather than just be a soundbite. We do not say for example, "some people criticized the Bush doctrine, saying it was stoopid." We need to know why they drew that conclusion. Now please tell me what Russell meant by his comments on Malthus and Ricardo, and how widely those views are held. TFD (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is crazy, we have criticism of marxism from a notable person, and this criticism is itself notable (many sources), but editors make new excuses to cut it from the «criticism of marxism» article. Spumuq (talq) 12:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

By your reasoning we should add Russell's criticisms to every subject he chose to criticize, and add criticism by every other notable person to these articles. What is important is not whether the person making the criticism is notable, but whether their criticism is. TFD (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not true, do not put words in my mouth, Russell might have criticized many things, but this criticism of Marxism is notable and well referenced, and this is the «Criticisms of Marxism» article. Is there any other excuse to delete notable criticism of Marxism by a notable person? Spumuq (talq) 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources, other than books about Russell, that mention it? TFD (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right Spumuq, looks like a lot of excuses to avoid actual criticism of Marx in an article entitled Criticisms of Marxism.Jimjilin (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC) TFD, Why on earth should we exclude books about Russell? lolJimjilin (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Here's a discussion about Russell and Marx: http://politicalaffairs.net/v-j-mcgill-on-russell-s-critique-of-marxism-by-thomas-riggins/Jimjilin (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your source is a review of an article about Russell. The article reviewed had claimed Russell's views on Marx were confused, that Russell attacked Marx for views that Marx never expressed. I am happy to read that because I thought I must be the one confused for not understanding what Russell was talking about when he accused Marx of subscribing to the iron law of wages. Some socialists (Lassallians) of course did believe it, which is why they opposed unions and supported the welfare state, neither of which Marx did. You need to show that Russell's criticisms have attained significance in literature about Marx (not Russell). It could be that it is relevant to the article about Russell. And no I do not have to show that the criticism is insignificant to this article (although I have already done so), you need to show that it is significant. TFD (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Another Russell edit war

Another slow burn edit war has begun over this text:

Bertrand Russell has criticized Marx's belief in progress as a universal law. Russell stated "It is only because of the belief in the inevitability of progress that Marx thought it possible to dispense with ethical considerations." and "Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify. Broadly speaking, all the elements in Marx's philosophy which are derived from Hegel are unscientific, in the sense that there is no reason whatever to suppose them true."<ref>Russell, Bertrand History of Western Philosophy Simon and Schuster pp.788-789</ref>

(cur | prev) 10:38, 23 April 2015‎ Spumuq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,362 bytes) (+595)‎ . . (no consensus to remove Bertrand Russell) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 01:46, 23 April 2015‎ Xcuref1endx (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,767 bytes) (-595)‎ . . (Still no consensus, do not know why you tried sneaking it in again Jimjilin.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 01:35, 16 April 2015‎ Jimjilin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,362 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Historical determinism) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 15:43, 14 April 2015‎ Jimjilin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,362 bytes) (+595)‎ . . (→‎Historical determinism) (undo | thank)

The edit summaries on each side look a little passive aggressive: let's bring the discussion back to this talk page. I think with the right secondary sources about Sarkar, Batra and Russell, the whole Historical determinism section can be made stronger and more interesting.

The Riggins article (about Russell, McGill and Marx[4]), if I read it correctly, does not mention historical determinism. What other secondary sources do you know that will be useful?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There are not any useful secondary sources, as the criticism is obscure and only mentioned in highly partisan websites. Riggins says that it is hard to believe Russell actually read Marx, which is probably why no reliable sources give the criticism any credence. Russell criticized Marx by attributing views to him he did not actually hold. TFD (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole section needs secondary sources (not just Russell). Instead, certain editors who might know the sources are warring in a vain hope to have the last word. In the meantime, let's keep Russell out, if the only articles about him are by Marxists, Riggins and McGill. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the article needs more secondary sources, otherwise, it does just become a random collection of quotes from primary sources which has made this article a huge mess. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jimjilin: @Xcuref1endx: Stop edit warring. Even if you don't revert 3 times in 24 hours, repeated reversions are disruptive: they waste other people's time too, and there is a 50:50 chance that the article gets protected with an edit you dislike. Jimjiln: it is not enough that your proposed quote from Bertrand Russell is reliably sourced, it needs consensus as well. What compromises can you make to make it better fit encyclopedic values? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we forbidden now to quote or paraphrase prominent writers who have criticized Marx? If so we should throw out this article and many other Wikipedia articles. If this criticism is obscure why did Riggins and McGill find it necessary to refute it?Jimjilin (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

How about:

Bertrand Russell has criticized as unscientific Marx's belief in progress as a universal law. Russell stated: "Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify. Marxists like Thomas Riggins have claimed that Russell misrepresented Marx's ideas.Jimjilin (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

IOW Russell criticized Marx based on his misreading and his comments were universally ignored except for a left-wing journal that pointed them out. How does not that meet the policy requirement of weight? And don't say that Russell was so important that every single thing he said needs to be reported in this encyclopedia unless you plan to edit tens of thousands of articles about topics on which Russell commented at one time or another. TFD (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Russell is notable.

Xcuref1endx is reverting three people now, why is this allowed?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spumuq (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 April 2015

@Spumuq: 1. Russell is notable. But not everything he said is notable. According to Jimjilin's research so far, only 2 writers, both Marxists, and only one himself notable, took note of Russell's analysis of Marx and Marxism. Furthermore, we also take into account weight, and consensus. We cannot write an effective series of articles about Marxism, unless we are selective.

2. Reversion is only allowed as long as it is not disruptive. This is why I called out the two editors who did the most reverts. Reversion will not give us a better article. Only discussion will.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The three people I reverted ignored the conversation in the talk section and went ahead with the controversial edit. Consensus has not be gained, yet the controversial edit has been put in. Spumuq, after telling me not to engage in edit war, goes ahead and reverts to include the controversial edit again. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that these individuals keep on stating "Russell is notable" demonstrates an inability to grasp what the actual controversy is as the reason for its inclusion is about the notability of the criticism and NOT the notability of who is making it. This has been repeated over and over and over again. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your theory of notability of this criticism. Clearly many other editors don't as well. Why don't you try to make the case that this well ref'd material doe not deserve inclussion? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jimjiln: Your newly proposed paragraph strikes me as much more balanced than your previous proposal. It would still help if you can make a case for its importance (not in the entire philosophical world, but only relative to important critiques of Marxism.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and its importance can be established through weighted reliable secondary sources. This is what has been requested a number of times. It's inclusion cannot be self-evident because "Bertrand Russell is notable." -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are an enormous number of books and academic writings that focus on Russell's criticism of Marxism. This is a serious area of academic study, why in the world would we not include it? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You say it is well referenced material. We would welcome some of these references so we can move the conversation forward. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop this tendentious editing. That particular bit of text is well sourced and it's relevant; one of the most striking problems we have is that some en.wiki editors have highly asymmetric sourcing requirements - anything that makes marxism look bad is automatically removed whilst requiring ever more stringent sourcing or balancing, whilst anything that makes marxism look good can be kept by default regardless of whether it's synthesis, or even completely unsourced. bobrayner (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain where in Marx's writings he shows support for Malthusian population theory, or any of the other theories that Russell attributes to him. Then we can put them in the article and Russell's criticisms might make sense. TFD (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

it is not for us to decide if russell was correct, only report what he wrote/said criticising marxism. i agree the passage is well sourced and is relevant. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Several people have now said that Russell's analysis is well sourced. But no-one has posted any sources except for the Riggins article. Please post the other sources that you have found. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A simple question: As defined by WP:RS, is the Riggins article considered a reliable source, yes or no? Hammersbach (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

agreed, one source is plenty, you may add a source to counter russells comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think that source (and Russell's original publisher) are reliable. The question is not the reliability of the sources. The question is how we get a consensus for how we select which criticisms we include in the article. Pretty much every notable philosopher, economist and historian that wrote since 1850 has published a criticism of Marx. How do we know which ones to include in the article? By consensus, weighing up the secondary and tertiary sources about those criticisms. Jimjiln's proposal to add Russell's criticism has not yet gained consensus. Capitalismojo says that There are an enormous number of books and academic writings that focus on Russell's criticism of Marxism but we so far know of just two of that enormous number (Riggins and McGill - McGill is notable but not prominent) - once we see one or two more the discussion can move forward. Until then there is no consensus, there is merely "I like it" and "I don't like it"; or more correctly "Tell my why you like it".

On the other hand, if we do include it, it is really allowing room for a Marxist to claim that Marx intended his ideas to hold even if historical materialism is neither inevitable nor axiomatic.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense instead of saying that in an obscure article Russell criticised Marx for determinism to explain Marx's view of history and analysis about why some writers consider it deterministic and others do not and explain the weight of these different views? That way it would read more like an encyclopedic article than a blog posting.

I also suspect by reading through this lengthy discussion that many editors have only a superficial grasp of Marxism. I myself have only a basic grasp of the key concepts. It might be better to leave the article to editors who are familiar with all the literature or at least for us to make ourselves aware of it before making changes to it.

Darkstar1st, of course it is not for us to determine whether Russell was correct, but it is for us to determine and report the degree of acceptance his criticisms have. If we are going to report a criticism that Marx was Malthusian, we should at least report how widespread that belief is. Can you recommend any books about Marx you have found helpful in understanding his writings?

TFD (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

TFD, would it not make more sense, and be more polite, instead of asking for Darkstar1st’s recommendation, that you yourself first recommend any books about Marx you have found helpful in understanding his writings? Hammersbach (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, because the onus is on editors who wish to add material. Besides which, there are many, many books about what Marx said, and it would be wrong to take any one of them and say it provides the complete criticisms of Marx. But since Darkstar1st wants to add additional criticism, it would be helpful if he could point out a source that explains what the criticisms are. I think a lot of the cause of animosity toward Marx is anti-Communism and the assumption is that he wrote the blueprint followed by Stalin and Mao.

Anyway as I mentioned I "have only a basic grasp of the key concepts." So I cannot recommend any books.

TFD (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The more I read the comment, the more disingenuous I find the above "basic grasp" editor... Hammersbach (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This being the "Criticisms of Marxism" article, why must marxist apologia always get the last word? bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that any of the editors here are Marxists. Myself, I always argue that the opinions of people, regardless of how unpopular they are, must always be presented accurately and all criticism presented must meet weight. I believe that the best way to discredit the views of writers with whom I disagree is to keep articles neutral, rather than misrepresenting their views and adding obscure sources. I am confident that reasonable readers presented with facts will make the correct decisions and adding misleading information is more likely to create sympathy for the subject at worst or discredit the article to the extent it has no influence. Note that the websites that routinely publish the Russell comment have no influence in U.S. politics beyond a narrow fringe. TFD (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• The apology with the last word in Jimjiln's revised paragraph (that I posted) was the article by Riggins - definitely a Marxist. That the Marxist advocacy comes second is merely because the negative criticism came first (historically). When a positive criticism of Marxism is contributed, it would only be right that a non-Marxist gets the last word in that paragraph.
• However, "Philosopher A said but Philosopher B said" is not going to improve the article much. I think the whole historical determinism section is fairly low quality by Featured Article standards, and should be started over, with great sources for both sides of the debate. (Like TFD I am not qualified. When I read an English translation of Capital, my conclusions were similar to Russell's, and I find it hard to understand the opposing side.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually TFD some of the editors are admitted Marxists.Jimjilin (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional refs about Russell's criticsm

Someone wanted addtional refs that indicate Russell's criticsm of Marxism is noteworthy. I think criticism from one of the acknowledged intellectual leaders of the last century and Nobel Prize winner was enough but...here is two minutes of looking (mostly academic refs).

[[5]] Quote: "In 1896 Russell published his first political work, German Social Democracy. Though sympathetic to the reformist aims of the German socialist movement, it included some trenchant and farsighted criticisms of Marxist dogmas. " [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]]

If more are needed they can be found by anyone. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I like most of those that I have looked at so far (some are taking a while to download): they give reason to include Russell's analysis of other parts of Marxism. I look forward to more Wikipedia article text about Russell and Marxism (not only in Bertrand Russell's views on society and Bertrand Russell's views on philosophy.)

Is the Robert K. Wen book a beginner's textbook? (are its opinions due some weight here?).

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course the links can be found by anyone by googling "criticism of marxism bertrand russell." And as expected most of the sources are about Russell, starting with his article in Encyclopedia Britannica. Some of the sources do not say anything about Russell's criticism of Marxism.

Notably Beyond Marx-ism and Dewey-ism: A 'red Pragmatism' for the Twenty-first Century says "Many of the criticisms that are put forward by Russell, Dewey, and Cohen apply only to the simplistic and crude understandings of Marxism embodied in the doctrines of the Third International. For example, both Russell and Cohen critique the determinism and fatalism of Marx's method....these criticisms are directed at an interpretation of Marxism that Hook had long before rejected."

Russell's reliance on Marxists for what Marx wrote, rather than Marx's original writings, probably accounts for confusion about Marx's position on the "iron law of wages." It was actually part of the doctrine of Marx's rival Lassalle. As explained in Marx's Wage Theory in Historical Perspective, pp. 242-243, many German Social Democrats incorrectly attributed it to Marx and even the great historian Toynbee made the same error.[15] But today, no reliable sources make that error, since the scholarship on Marx has radically improved. The acceptance of the "iron law" turned Social Democrats against revolution and trade unionism and instead to support the welfare state, which is a departure from what Marx actually wrote.

It could be that all this justifies a section about how Marx has been misinterpreted both by his followers and detractors.

Wen's book is self-published and he lists no academic qualifications. I would ask Capitalismojo why he chose to list this source.

TFD (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I picked the first fifteen or so books or academic refs that came up on a brief search. The question I was attempting to answer here was "Is Russell's criticism of Marxism noteworthy?". I conclude from searching and the refs above that Russell's criticism was and is noteworthy. I can see that he criticism is still a matter of discussion almost a century later. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Wen link, it can be dropped without problem, I was not proposing using it in the article, merely as a sample of immediately available discussion on the matter. I'd say the New Criterion, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Stanford, Times of London, EGS-Switzeralnd (Eurpoean Graduate School), and Penn State links above might be better relied upon, if you were looking to add refs to the article.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC) I have removed it from the list above. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It would only be noteworthy in an article about Marx if it were mentioned in reliable books about Marx. In comparison, Lyndon Larouche has claimed that the UK royal family are drug traffickers and the fact he made the claim is routinely mentioned in reliable sources about him. But it is not noteworthy to articles about the royal family. It could be that Russell's comments are regularly selectively quoted in the blogs you visit, but that says more about them than about Marx. TFD (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. This is not a biography article about Marx or Russell. It is an article about the "Criticism of Marxsim". None of the items under discussion in this section are blogs. I am not in the habit of spending time on blogs about LaRouche, the UK royal family, drug trafficking, Marxism, or Russell for that matter. I don't see where you are going with this. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

this is approaching tediousness editing, the passage is widely sourced and highly relevant. from above: It would only be noteworthy in an article about Marx if it were mentioned in reliable books about Marx. this editor appears to be confused about notability, please review and amend your comments, or cite the relevant passage from policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I will rephrase my comments: It would only be noteworthy in an article about Marxism if it were mentioned in reliable books about Marxism. The only sources about Marxism that mention it are fringe websites. Neutrality requires us to report criticisms that are considered noteworthy, not ones we consider noteworthy. And I do not understand how anyone with any familiarity with Marxism would consider it Malthusian. Marx said that if Malthus were right, socialism would be impossible.

Darkstar1st, I never mentioned "notability", I said "noteworthy." The relevant policy is due and undue weight: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In my example, Larouche's views are notable, but they are not noteworthy for the subjects he writes about. No matter how many books about Larouche mention his views on the royal family, they do not belong in articles about the royal family.

TFD (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is there continued talking about LaRouche? There is no LaRouche ref under discussion. None. The refs above are academic and mainstream media. They are about Marxism and all mention Russell's criticism as a serious noteworthy item. There are many such available, and more could be easily added. I'm not sure if this is "tedious" editing as mentioned above but it is certainly getting into tendentious IDONTHEARTHAT territory. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of not hearing things, "Balancing aspects" says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject.(my emphasis)." A book about Russell is not a source on Marxism, which is the subject, anymore than a book about Larouche is a source for the royal family or Marxism for that matter.

If you want to contribute to an article about Marxism, you need to conduct at least minimal reading in sources about Marxism. Then you would realize why Russell's criticism was muddle-headed and why no one cites it today. You could also provide a more interesting discussion if you would at least read someone like Sidney Hook, for whom Russell wrote "Why I am not a Communist," This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a polemical collection of sound-bites. That is best left to the blogs where making sense is not an issue.

TFD (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

the subject is criticism of marxism, a book about Russell, or by Russell may contain such, therefore the source is on the subject. no where does it state the source must only discuss the subject. a single source could be used in several different articles as a rs on several different topics. there is certainly several sources that mention this specific criticism, balance requires it's mention in the same measure. agree with Mojo about IDHT, and feel such long debate over such minor issues is tedious and battleground. example: I "have only a basic grasp of the key concepts. So I cannot recommend any books. and you need to conduct at least minimal reading in sources about Marxism. from the same editor, or Can you recommend any books about Marx you have found helpful in understanding his writings? is the editor knowledgeable of the topic or not? i find this less than constructive and approaching disruptive. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A book about anything may contain criticism of Marxism. Since the criticism is only mentioned in books about Russell and not endorsed by any source, it is "tendentious" to include it. As the essay says, it is "editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." While the article should present criticism of Marxism, it should present criticisms that have some degree of acceptance in reliable sources. Unfortunately Russell's comments do not. Certainly if we are to add Russell's criticism that Marx was Malthusian we need to mention that his criticism, as all scholars agree, was based on a misreading. In fact it is obvious to anyone who has even a basic understanding of Malthus and Marx obtained through reading a paragraph or two about each. TFD (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Russell is notable and his criticism of marxism is notable, it is "tendentious" to make excuses to remove it from this «criticism of marxism» article. This is crazy, we have criticism of marxism from a notable person, and this criticism is itself notable (many sources), but editors make new excuses to cut it from the «criticism of marxism» article. Spumuq (talq) 12:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism

This is a book that is about the crimes of 20th century totalitarian regimes, it is not at all connected to the criticism of the Marxist theory. Its inclusion is POV pushing. Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how it can be POV pushing. That's a weird thing to say.

I haven't read the book, and can only go by what's written in the article:

• "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a book written by several European academics and edited by Stéphane Courtois,[1] and documents a history of repressions, both political and civilian, by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and artificial famines."

That sounds like a perfect See also link for an article about Criticisms of Marxism. We don't make a difference between Communism and Marxism in this type of situation. It's close enough to use. Regardless of your opinion, you must start a Discussion and seek a consensus to remove it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit warring here is a real problem and you'll only get blocked.

You have deleted that See also link at least twice and been reverted by different editors. You have also deleted other material numerous times and been reverted by several other editors. Your edit warring is on several fronts. Your edits have been rejected by many, so they would all see YOU as the edit warrior.

You must change tactics and not edit war. Instead, follow the BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, and make a habit of doing so. Never try to force your will when it's been rejected by another editor. When a Bold edit of yours has been Reverted, you are not supposed to repeat your action. That second edit is the start of edit warring. You should start a Discussion on the talk page. BRD is not spelled BRB, or BRRD. There is only one R in it, and it's only three letters. We collaborate here and create content through consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Show me the diffs where I reverted the EL in question more than once. Otherwise, everything you just posted contributes absolutely nothing to this discussion. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's in the See also section, not an EL. Here are the two diffs: [16] [17] Why can't you see that in the article history? It's plain as day. There are also a lot of other places where you edit warred with numerous editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, who is "we" when you say we don't differentiate between Marxism and Communism, because they are different things. You have a consensus to point to there, or did you just make that up? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I replied to that same question on your talk page. For this purpose, it's close enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism was a criticism of Communist states in the 20th century, rather than of Marxism in general. These states adhered to a specific form of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism. It would the same as adding a book critical of Scientology to criticisms of religion. TFD (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that is a bad analogy. It would like adding to a "see also" a book criticising historic Catholic and Orthodox states to an article on Christianity. (e.g. Spanish Inquisition, 30 Years War, etc) And in fact that is precisely what the body of the Criticisms of Christianity article contains (...in the body of the text not just see also). It is resonable to include this book. Perfectly reasonable in fact. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is proposed See also addition. It is entirely appropriate to include a book that stands as a critical review of all Marxist states since the inception of marxist states in this article as a "see also". The most trenchant criticism of Marxism is that it worked extremely badly when tried. How then exclude a mere "see also" addition? Capitalismojo (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

For this purpose (in See also) it's close enough and perfectly good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The article Criticisms of Christianity correctly mentions force used by Christian churches against opponents, and there is no reason why this article should not the same thing. But the Christianity external references list does not list books about the inquisition, pedophile priests, Canadian reserve schools, etc. And certainly there have been numerous Marxist governments that did not carry out mass killings, for example Social Democrats in the Weimar Republic. TFD (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Weimar Republic was a multi-party parlimentary democracy not a Marxist state. The Social Democrats were a large party, but not the ruling party, it took part in coalition governments only in few years (1918–1921, 1923, 1928–1930). Bad history doesn't help make the case. The supposition that there may be a Marxist regime that didn't engage in mass killings does not mean that the criticism in this book is not valid and useful "see also" addition. (Also, by the way, the Inquisition involved Christian states and societies not just churches) Capitalismojo (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as being "close enough and perfectly good". They are completely different animals. This article is about Criticisms of Marxism. The black book of communism is a single book about communist totalitarian regimes in the 20th century. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Completely different animals? Yes, and how are the Marxist regimes of the 20th century, roundly criticised in this book, completely "different animals"? Really, I'd like to hear the theory. Certainly they thought of themselves as Marxist, they are described as Marxist in literally countless RS and academic texts, but somehow they are "completely different" apparently unrelated. Howso? Further, how is this famous 850+ page tome (written by six academics and published by Harvard) criticizing Marxist states not relevant? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Courtois does not make any connection between Marxism and Communist regimes. He writes about Marxism-Leninism which he says originated in 1917 (Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848.) and says, "The roots of Marxist-Leninism are perhaps not to be found in Marx at all, but in a deviant version of Darwinism." (p. 752) In 1918 the German president and chancellor were both SPD, which was the largest party. That put them in a stronger position than the Bolsheviks, who in 1917 were the second largest party in Russia, yet the SPD did not set up a Marxist-Leninist regime. (The largest party in the Duma was also Marxist, yet did not participate in the October Revolution.) Courtois sees the difference between the SPD and the Bolsheviks as the first were Marxists while the second were "activist subjectivists." (p. 741) While it may be tempting to confuse Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, we should not place polemics above accuracy. TFD (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In my edition of the book, discussion of Marxism begins on page 10 and concludes 700+ pages later. It is quite critical. Perhaps you have another addition. Is there any policy based reason to not have this "see also" included? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• The question here is not the book, but the statement. There is no doubt that Marxism–Leninism (the official ideology of many communist states) was founded based on the ideas of Marxism. That was always claimed by Soviet authors and politicians (including Lenin and Stalin themselves) and by many Western historians, even such as Richard Pipes. If more scholarly references needed, they can be easily found. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • So you think Stalin is a reliable source and we should take everything he says at face value? TFD (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is just an unusual case when the Soviet and Western historians agree about something. BTW, the last chapter of the Black Book where authors discuss the reasons for repressions is relevant here (agree with Capitalismojo). It is another story that some authors trace the communist/Marxist ideas to the Republic (Plato)... My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism is an appropriate source for both Marxist theory and Marxist praxis.Dorpater (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism was the official of the Soviet Union and they killed people. Chrisitianity was the official religion of Nazi Germany and they killed people. In order to make it relevant you need to show a causal connection. My understanding of Courtois' thesis is that the Communists' belief that they were creating a better world motivated the purges. But I do not see where he connects that with Marx. Is there anything in Marx's writings that advocate purges by Communist governments? In fact IIRC Courtois was writing about Communism, rather than Marxism. TFD (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticisms of Marxism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218142504/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/paretian/social.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/paretian/social.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with this article?

This article is c-class, I want to bump it up. Name some problems with it, and I'll see if I can help fix any of them. Go! K.Bog 04:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Kbog, I think the section counter-criticism is way to short. For sure supporters of Marxism have answers to criticism. Lappspira (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of that sort of thing ought to be integrated throughout the article, per WP:criticism. Only very generic counter-criticism belongs in its own section.

I haven't come across much counter-criticism that has the same level of scholarly notability as the big famous arguments being discussed here, but I'll see what I can find. K.Bog 06:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Image

There was no discussion or consensus to add this image in the first place and just because it wasn't reverted it doesn't mean it makes sense to have it. This page seems to concern general (classical) Marxist (not Marxist–Leninist) criticisms as a theory, not practice; there's already Criticism of communist party rule for that. Furthermore, not everyone actually agree that Marxism–Leninism is Marxist or even Leninist but rather an ideology ideated by Stalin to justify his own policies and which most Communist leaders followed. To me, it just seems to be a "scare" image which ignores all Marxist criticisms of these states not only as soon as the Bolsheviks took power but even before they did that; and placing Marxism–Leninism as the one true Marxism and that Marxism–Leninism is necessarily Marxism in practice. There's no need to add that image; one can freely criticise Marxism for "suppression of individual rights" even in theory (the anarchists did that first), without resorting to a reductio ad Stalinum.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

For the extraordinary claim that Marxism–Leninism is not true Marxism, you will really need to put reliable sources on the table. Note that the burden to back this claim is on you, not on everyone else. --MarioGom (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: It was just an hyperbole. Either way, I thought this page was about classical Marxism criticisms and Criticism of communist party rule about Marxism–Leninism in practice. That image is used to conflate Marxism–Leninism with Marxism as a whole; all I'm asking is not to conflate communism and Marxism as a whole with Marxism–Leninism, which is just one variant of both. Are there also any more notable counter-criticisms or responses to add in the article?--95.245.199.21 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. In this case, the Suppression of individual rights is hardly due weight, and it is poorly sourced by the way. I agree it belongs primarily to Criticism of communist party rule. --MarioGom (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Then what do you believe should be done about it and the image too? What's even the scope of the article? Does it refer only to criticisms of Marxism pilosophically (as theory) such as described in classical or orthodox Marxism pages, or politically (in practice) such as in Marxism–Leninism? Because if it's a general criticism of Marxism as a whole, then there should also be left communist and libertarian Marxist criticism of Marxism–Leninism and viceversa. I propose this to be criticism of classical Marxism (as in theory, philosophically) and Criticism of communist party rule to be criticism as practiced by Marxism–Leninism (as in practice, politically).--95.245.199.21 (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2019

Criticisms of Marxism → Criticism of Marxism – Per Criticism of Google, Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Wikipedia, etc.; and also Criticism of communist party rule, Criticism of libertarianism, Criticism of socialism etc. Unless there's something I missed for why this should be the exception.--Davide King (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree, makes perfect sense. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The word criticism is more frequently used an uncountable. --Less Unless (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• List of "Criticism(s) of..." titles. We have 11 in the plural (including this one), and about 50 in the singular. If there's consensus around consistently using the singular form, the other 10 pages should probably also be moved. Colin M (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Colin M: I would support that, if there's indeed consensus around consistently using the singular form.--Davide King (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)