Talk:Criticisms of Marxism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Intro 2 Sources 3 NPOV? And other points... 4 Accidental revert 5 Labor theory of value 6 OR 7 Caplan and human rights

Ultramarine, much of the stuff is repeated from Criticisms of communism. Could you at least remove from one of the articles?

Also, Bryan Caplan is not a major critic. You should find more notable people who have criticised human rights, AND you should include counterarguments, like you are doing with the capitalism article. -- infinity0 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan has 145,000 Goggle hits. He has a well-known website, The Museum of Communism. He is notable enough.Ultramarine 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

'"Bryan Caplan" Marxism' has 11,600 hits. He is not known prkimarily for criticising marxism. Even so, please insert defences against those arguments. -- infinity0 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can do it, if you have any. There is no policy in Wikipedia that there must be a counter-argument for every argument.Ultramarine 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

POV-forking policy says that "Criticisms of" must include counterarguments. You yourself keep repeating this for the "Criticisms of capitalism" article, please be honourable and do the same for this article! Even if there is no policy for this, you yourself have kept on inserting defences into capitalist articles; please treat all articles equally and do the same for this one. -- infinity0 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if there are any. Feel free to add any good one, preferably sourced.Ultramarine 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You know there are. I am busy with other things at the moment. Since the article does not contain counterarguments you are not following NPOV. Please think about writing for the enemy, however much you dislike to. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, please TRY to leave your personal views behind this? -- infinity0 21:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not. Then I would add them.Ultramarine 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you take this attitude? Do you think perhaps that if there were no counterarguments then nobody would take this position? Please, make an attempt to open your mind. -- infinity0 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Marxists do not know these criticisms. If there are any counter-arguments, preferably sourced, add them.Ultramarine 21:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Ultramarine, I am just requesting a favour from you that for once, you try to represent both sides of the story. That is what NPOV and the encyclopedia is about. Could you please at least just represent *both sides*? -- infinity0 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my friendly advice to you. Marxism is fundamentally flawed. But the good news is that you do not need to be a Marxist to be a socialist. Preferably, I would suggest a social democracy. They can actually show that they have done many good things.Ultramarine 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is your problem. You think "Marxism is fundamentally flawed" is the truth. But there are many people who disagree with you. Can't you at least let them have their voice? What you are doing is the equivalent of censorship; you're refusing to acknowledge their existence and their right of speech. -- infinity0 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy, if I can find a reliable one, or if you can find a reliable one? Ultramarine 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Ultramarine. Nice to see you again. :) Now, on to business. First, let's not play any games about there not being counter-arguments to criticisms of Marxism. Most of the criticisms you listed are either directed at Marx himself or famous Marxists that died over 60 years ago. Surely you must realize that all of these issues have already generated lengthy discussion and there are probably hundreds of counter- and counter-counter-arguments. Now I understand if you refuse to go look for them - since you are not required to do so - but if we are to have a productive discussion here, I would appreciate it if you at least acknowledged their existence. Logic dictates that Marxists must have answered 60 year-old objections (and, in some cases, 150 year-old objections).

Also, forgive me for saying this, but many of the criticisms you have inserted are very bad and either not directed at Marxism alone or directed at a small detail that you could reject and still be a Marxist. As a utilitarian, for example, I do not believe in the existence of any immutable human rights. I support human rights to the extent that they increase total happiness. If there is a way to increase happiness more effectively by getting rid of an existing human right, I will be the first to say that we must go ahead and do it. Bryan Caplan is arguing from a deontological libertarian standpoint based on a belief in immutable "natural rights" that must be respected no matter what. He is playing the classical deontological trick of making his views appear more respectable by arguing that following his strict rules will incidentally also produce the best results. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Any philosopher would immediately call him on this.

In any case, the article as it stands now is unbalanced. I have no desire to get involved with it just yet - and besides, you're clearly not finished - so here's what I propose: I'll mark it with the unbalanced tag and you can have a free hand to develop it as you see fit, until you are done. Then I'll come over, have a look, research counter-criticisms and add them. Then we can negotiate the final form of the article. Deal?

Oh, one last thing - as infinity pointed out, this article is entirely redundant with the second half of criticisms of communism. Do you want to split off that half of the article? If yes, we'll have to rename criticisms of communism into criticisms of Communist states or something similar. -- Nikodemos 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your proposals seems fine. Let me just note that it is not for logical arguments that Marxism has thrived, it is because of the emotional appeal of an equilitarian utopia. Marxists would better spend their time in labor parties. Ultramarine 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The emotional appeal of an egalitarian utopia does not require a complicated political theory to support it. Marxism would never have started in the first place if there weren't people wishing to create an egalitarian utopia on rational grounds. Even if you believe that Marxism is emotional junk, Marxists certainly don't, and they had to prove it to themselves and their supporters. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy: Socialism is nice theory, if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy. Marxism has the added advantage of having a convoluted theory that is almost incomprehensible when digging deeper which seems very impressive. The same thing applies most religions. A mass appeal and a complex theology for the intellectual. Ultramarine 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I told you, I don't have time right now. What I am asking is a favour, that you do it. It would be a good exercise for you anyway. Just think of it as an experiment :) -- infinity0 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I knew good arguments against, I would of course be a Marxist! I started out on the far left, but the lack of arguments has moved me more to the center.Ultramarine 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered pragmatic far-leftism? ;) The worst thing about the far left is that it tends to be dogmatic, and that drives people away. Never forget that you can pick and choose which ideas to support, and there's nothing wrong with being moderate on some issues and radical on others. That's how I am. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not true, Ultramarine. You can *know* the contents of arguments without having to agree with them. Obviously, if you don't agree with them then you have your own counterarguments against that, but then it gets complicated, and that is where we stop adding content into the article. An encyclopedia article cannot contain everything. But the basic arguments from both sides should at least be included.

A good way of including both sides of an argument is to include arguments which do not directly attack each other; this avoids the desire to repeatedly make points and counter-points. -- infinity0 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to assume that there must be counter-arguments. But that is not true, look for example at the flat-earth theory.Ultramarine 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that? if so, why? Marxism has substantially more people taking it seriously than FET. -- infinity0 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is nice theory, if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy. Marxism has the added advantage of having a convoluted theory that is almost incomprehensible when digging deeper which seems very impressive. The same thing applies most religions. A mass appeal and a complex theology for the intellectual.Ultramarine 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if that were true, most religions also have a barrage of counter-criticisms to strike against anything you throw at them. Creationism was a sizable article the last time I checked, despite its utter absurdity. Simply put, any idea with more than a few hundred supporters, no matter how crazy, has its arsenal of arguments. For Marxist arguments, take a look over marxist.org In any case, this discussion is sterile. We already have a deal. I'll go add the unbalanced tag, and you can edit away.

Btw, the idea that "if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy" has its merits. It leads to the question, "how do you get everyone to be nice and share?". And if you have a good answer to that question, you've got the ingredients for a great society. -- Nikodemos 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Creationism has difficulty responding to many questions.Ultramarine 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ultramarine, you say that you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist. That is true. It is also true that you can be a Marxist and not support Communist states or anything like them. Indeed, Marxism itself mostly consists of criticisms of capitalism. A Marxist could logically support any system that is more egalitarian than capitalism. A friend of mine is a Marxist social democrat (he believes that social democracy + modern western economies = a society that is fundamentally different from the 19th century capitalism that Marx was criticizing). Since Marxism is not a religion, a Marxist can freely reject any part he doesn't like. Don't like Marx's criticism of human rights? Abandon it! -- Nikodemos 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A person is arguably not a Marxist if he does not follow Marx. Marx explicitly rejected all capitalism, do some forms of social democracy are certainly not Marxist. See also my reply above.Ultramarine 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, just about every self-proclaimed Marxist from Lenin to the present day was not a true Marxist, since they all rejected large parts of Marx's ideas. I like to pick and choose which of Marx's ideas seem good to me and support those without worrying myself about the rest. How would you classify me? Most importantly, you should avoid creating an article which implies guilt by association of the form "Marx was wrong about X, Y and Z, therefore he was wrong about everything". The ONLY reason I defend articles on Communist states and the like is because I am sick and tired of people making the leap from "some socialists are wrong about something" to "all socialists are wrong about everything". -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All Marxist-leninists certainly argued that they followed Marx. Have you considered that if Marx was wrong on some fundamental things like human nature, then he may have been wrong on other things also.Ultramarine 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninists sometimes used the most arcane intellectual tricks to somehow get Marx and Lenin to agree, and also to get each and every one of themselves agree with Lenin on everything - as you so adequately put it, they exhibited clearly religious behaviour. However, there is no particular reason why all Marxists need to act this way. Also, I happen to agree with Marx on human nature. At least, human nature is clearly not engineered for an economic system - capitalism - that has barely existed for a few centuries. If there is any human nature at all, it is logically best suited to a tribal hunter-gatherer society (preferably in the African savannah). -- Nikodemos 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that belief is part of the explanation for the mass killings that occurred, as Pipes notes.Ultramarine 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Guilt by association. Please note that if A -> B that does not mean that also B -> A. If Hitler was a vegetarian that does not mean that all vegetarians are like Hitler. If Stalin held a certain belief that does not logically imply that all who hold that belief must also agree with everything else Stalin believed and did. I believe in a highly flexible human nature, but I am also a utilitarian, and the actions of Stalin and Mao cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds. -- Nikodemos 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you pick some parts of Marx's theory and reject others, then you are arguably not a Marxist anymore. It would be better to state socialist that agrees with Marx on some points.Ultramarine 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

'The human rights abuses, political repression and economic problems of several historical Communist states have done much to destroy Karl Marx's reputation in the Western world, particularly following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the Soviet bureaucracy often invoked him in their propaganda.'

This is pretty unaccepatable to me. Before even explaining what Marxism is, who is criticizing it etc., the intro talks about human rights abuses and political repression. This deliberatly places a bad spin on Marxism, without objectively explaining how these are linked to Marxism (it explains how they are tenuously linked to Marx, but this is irrelevant (who's to say Marx was a Marxist?)). The article seems 'unbalanced' anyway, but the info sets it off on the wrong foot. --Robdurbar 22:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Robdurbar 08:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year to all! Here's my problem with a section of the article: The introductory note states: "This article is on criticisms of Marxism, a branch of socialism. See criticisms of socialism for a discussion of objections to socialism in general. These concepts are not identical; many socialist supporters also criticize Marxism." Well, the first paragraph of "General criticisms" is a broad critique, not of Marxism, but of "communism." This, to me, violates the spirit of the introductory note. I'd like to take out Eric Hoffer's criticism, if that sounds okay to everyone. Thanks! --Dialecticas 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoffer is criticzing Marxism, we can replace "communism" with Marxism if you prefer. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as "communist" ideology, even if many use it as a synonym for Marxism. In Marxist theory communism is the classless and stateless society that will follow the dictatorship of the proletariat.Ultramarine 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question is, does Hoffer's The True Believer actually criticize Marxism? It just doesn't work to say "Marxism" and "communism" are synonymous. We need a citation referring to an explicit critique of Marxism by Hoffer, or else he does not belong in the article. Right? --Dialecticas 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He is certainly not criticzing every communal society, but the specific ideology advocated by Marx and its followers. That is, Marxism. That is, he is not criticzing for example those living in a communal society like Kibbutz.Ultramarine 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A citation or specific quote from Hoffer is needed. "Communal society," and whatever other things Hoffer is criticizing, is not what this entry is meant to be about. This entry is meant to demonstrate serious criticisms of Marxism, and not just any pov that calls variations of communalism "Marxism," or "utopian," or whatever. More info to demonstrate appropriateness is needed, or else we should delete Hoffer. --Dialecticas 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, Hoffer is not criticzing all communal societies or advocates of them. He is criticzing Marxism. Read the Wikipedia article: The True Believer.Ultramarine 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is backed-up after a reading of The True Beleiver entry. *Not once* does Marxism appear in the article. As the article states, "The True Believer" "discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism." This is not equivalent to a critique of Marxism, not in any way. The article describes a psychological analysis of all mass movements; Marxism is a philosophy, not a mass movement. I'm sorry but unless some verifiable reference is made to a direct critique of Marxism, and not tangential arguments dealing with not-specifically-Marxian phenomena, the reference to Hoffer should go. --Dialecticas 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is link giving another description: [1]Ultramarine 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Another: [2]Ultramarine 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I think you could go a long way toward ending this dispute if you could offer some EXACT citation, including a line reference, that makes clear that Hoffer is specifically talking about Marxism itself. Dialecticas makes a good point that Hoffer seems to be talking about a more general phenomena, of which Marxism might be a part. Unless we can make clear that Hoffer really IS talking about Marxism, it seems misleading to cite him in an article about Marxism. That's not to say that Hoffer's thoughts are worthless, or even that they're not somehow tangentially germane to the topic; they just may not belong in an article that purports to limit itself to a discussion only of Marxism.--Kgarrett 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, if we can't resolve the dispute about what Hoffer is discussing, perhaps we can add some notation about the relationship between Marxism and more general "communalist" movements and/or theories, and then cite Hoffer as a leading figure in that related debate. (Of course, that is getting pretty tangential from the main topic of the article) Would somebody like to throw out some proposed language that would satisfy both sides? It doesn't seem that Dialecticas is totally opposed to any reference to Hoffer at all, as long as it isn't misleadingly presented as a reference to Marxism if it really is not.--Kgarrett 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoffer is talking about mass movements and he argues that the followers of Marx formed one such. See the links above where he explicitly mentions Marx and Lenin.Ultramarine 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, a couple of us have repeatedly requested *specific* references/notations/quotes, and you have not supplied them. I have deleted the controversial assertions from the entry pending correct citation of passages with full references. --Dialecticas 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, do not edit this page again without the requested information. Myself, and a mediator, have detailed our concerns and your recent edit did not allay them. In fact, I believe that your insertion of "fake evidence" (providing a citation of commentary on the controversial material *does not* speak to the problem) harms your credibility. Again, do not revert my edit unless the concerns are dealt with. --Dialecticas 22:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers in Hoffer's book added.Ultramarine 08:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote Hoffer "Thus by denigrating prevailing beliefs and loyalties, the militant man of words unwittingly creates in the disillusioned masses a hunger for faith. For the majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication, or some passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves. Thus, in spite of himself, the scoffing man of words becomes the precursor of a new faith."

"The fanatics and the faith-hungry masses, however, are likely to invest such speculations with the certitude of holy writ, and make them the fountainhead of a new faith. Jesus was not a Christian, nor was Marx a Marxist."Ultramarine 08:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article needs to cite actual sources when refering to what "Marx said" or "Engels said". Most of M & E's works are avaliable at marxists.org so you coul get it from there. I consider that citing a critique saying "marx said x, but x is wrong" is not valid; we should cite what they refer to and what is their point separatly

There are sources. What statement is unsourced?Ultramarine 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV? And other points...

I think that this article is entirely necessary, but it does seem to suffer from a somewhat non-neutral POV. Although this is partly inevitable in an article that is probably intended as a companion article to Marxism, there does not seem to be much representation of how the criticisms of Marxism might themselves be criticised. For example, Richard Pipes is a neo-conservative Historian who would be expected to criticise Marxism. I have read the book of his that is cited in this article, and there seem to me to be various flaws in his argument. Moreover, it is a criticism of Soviet Communism, a political system that wasn't up and running until around 35 years until after Marx's death and which had a variety of implementations: Stalinist Communism differs in many ways from Leninist Communism, for example.

One massively valid criticism of Marxism that is not included is that offered by the various postmodern thinkers who claim it is a grand narrative. Also, Jean Baudrillard has strongly criticised the labour theory of value, and this does not seem to be mentioned in the article.

Just to lay my own ideological cards on the table, I completely accept the labour theory of value and other aspects of Marx's economic analysis, but I don't accept that the proletarian revolution is inevitable or that any form of dictatorship is a necessary evil which paves the way for the classless society. I don't want to start editing the article before my concerns have been aired since I feel we could end up with a bit of an edit war.

In short, I guess I'm asking: what is Marxism, as far as this article is concerned? It seems that the various strands of Marx's thought need to be subsectioned, and then the separate criticisms (and possible counterarguments) need to be outlined under each subsection. --Jim (Talk) 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if you added any further valid criticism that know of. Regarding the labor theory of value, it is briefly mentioned but it is a complicated subject probably better discussed in detail in the article about that. Regarding Pipes, it would be good with sourced counter-arguments. Note that Pipes attacks Marxism's view that human nature can be changed radically, not really the Communist states specifically, so his criticism should be mentioned regardless of one considers these states Marxist or not.Ultramarine 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental revert

Sorry Ultramarine, I reverted your edits in error: I thought the edit conflict was because I had pressed "Submit" twice.

I will leave in the {{fact}} in the Pipes bit though, as no citation is given for Pipes' source. Where does Trotsky say what Pipes claims he said? --Jim (Talk) 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is stated in Pipes book on stated pages but unfortunately I do not have it at home and I do not remember exactly what work Pipes quotes for this.Ultramarine

No probs. I assumed that Pipes would cite his source but I think for something as seemingly controversial as his quote from Trotsky the direct source should be indicated here: maybe what Trotsky actually wrote should be included, if only to foreclose criticisms.

I've added a little on Althusserian Marxism, and subsequent critiques. I don't want the article to expand to include every thrust and counter-thrust of the debate, but I do think the Hindess and Hirst stuff is important. I have left out Benton's counterargument because the Hindess and Hirst position is the one that is usually accepted nowadays in academia. --Jim (Talk) 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting addition. I will probably retrieve Pipes's book from a library in the coming weeks. I need it for other articles and then I can add the citation.Ultramarine 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labor theory of value

The article says:

Fundamental to Marxist theory is the labor theory of value. The theory is rejected for various reasons by the vast majority of economists today. Marginalism is seen as more correct. This is an important explanation for why Marxism has relatively little influence among economists today. Marxists have made various responses to the objections.

And that's it for the section.

Rejected for various reasons - okay... What are they? Some citations? Marginalism is seen as more correct by whom - the vast majority of economists? How is that determined? Why is marginalism seen as more correct? 202.81.18.30 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC) spider

The subject is quite complicated and not easily summarized in a few paragraphs in this article. Please have a look at labor theory of value and marginalism for a full description.Ultramarine 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very weak section given that Adam Smith and David Ricardo's labour theory of value was criticised by Marx and in effect supplanted by Marx with his 'socially necessary labour theory of value'. The criticism of Marxism cannot be confused with criticism of the labour theory of value.

The heading should be changed to "Socially necessary labour theory of value" if the article as a whole is to retain its direction as a description of Marxism.

General criticism of a "labour theory of value" is best expounded elsewhere.

ChrisWarren 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

I removed this paragraph because of Wikipedia's original research policy. In particular: "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. ...

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: ...

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;" -- Vision Thing -- 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caplan and human rights

The section addressing Caplan's critique of Marx's views on the human rights deserves, in my opinion, further elaboration: it simply states that human rights are some sort of religious dogma, which one must accept or be doomed to hell. What declares itself to be critisizm of Marx is actually only delivering, and by omission of valid counter-argument, supporting his theses. --Golioder 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, also the "general criticism" is very vague. Hoffer's argument is simply saying that Marxism is a form of ideology. This alone, again, is surely an argument FOR Marxism, since it claims to be the only ideology where one knows one is in ideology - in contrast to other ideologies, such as humanism, existentialism, liberalism etc., which consider themselves to be neutral, Marxism is perfectly aware of the necessity of taking (class, sex, or other) sides. Koestler's argument, at least in the present form, doesn't seem worthy of enlisting at all. Not only is it vague and generalizing, as it throws completely different things under a single title, it also simply states Marxist views, but miscomprehends them as forming a closed system. --Golioder 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoffer's arguments regarding the views and personality of a True Believer is rather different from your description. Also, Nazists and those with a strong faith certainly do not consider themselves to be neutral. Regarding Caplan and Koestler, if there are more sourced counter-arguments, then they should be added.Ultramarine 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, "general criticism" now looks less like "vague criticism". I still find it pro-Marxist, though. - About Nazis and religious fundamentalists - they are hardly comparable to Marxism, humanism, liberalism or existentialism. I would even venture to say that no racism can pass for a "system of ideas" or ideology, it is simply a matter of hatred taking the form of thought; it is a question for medicine, not for philosophy, science or system of ideas. The latter is obviously my personal opinion, though.

And regarding Caplan's counter-arguments to Marxist criticism of human rights - I am really not a Caplan connoisseur, so I hoped someone else will have fun with finding those. I can only say that, in this article, his stance sounds like "any criticism of HR inevitably leads to tyranny, just as any post-Newton physics inevitably leads to Hiroshima". This is because it is too short, to make sure. --Golioder 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We should probably remove the section on human rights. Caplan is a professor of economics, and so presumably a reliable source for articles on economic. As far as Marxism goes, though, he's just some random guy with a website; he has no particular standing as a critic of Marxism, and indeed makes obvious errors in his reading of Marx. VoluntarySlave 07:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are errors, point them out using sources. Regarding the subject human rights, if anything this is a branch of philosophy, and Caplan has written extensivly regarind this.[3] Ultramarine 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)