Talk:Das Kapital

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Das Kapital is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 question for Marx scholars 1.1 Das Kapital or Capital? 2 Written in Germany? 3 Lack of Critique 4 Das Kapital, the anti-Bible 5 Why is this considered a "harmful" book?

[edit] question for Marx scholars

(question asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk by 212.9.13.102 (02:07, 20 Mar 2004))

would appreciate help to track down a comment Marx made in Capital where he said there comes a point beyond which the further politizisation of money becomes redundant. could really use this for an essay, but need to be able to reference it. can you pin-point it in Capital?

[edit] Das Kapital or Capital?

I was surprised to find that this wasn't at 'Capital'. Everyone I've ever heard refer to it has called it simply Capital. The German title seems very odd. Mattley

Marx entitled his work Das Kapital, and thus it seems fitting that it is labeled under the same title. Das Kapital is the title I hear it referred to as. Shandolad 13:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes... Most of his other works were given German titles too. They were written in German. But we don't have articles called Bearbeiten von Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Thesen über Feuerbach or Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. Those are always referred to by their translated, English, titles. Conversely, the Grundrisse is only ever known by its original German title. In the case of Capital, usage is mixed. The English title is overwhelmingly preferred by Marx scholars, communists, academics etc. Whether this equates to "common usage" is debateable however, as Das Kapital is in widespread popular usage. IMO, it would be far preferable in this instance to plump for the title which is immediately and unambiguously intelligible to English-speaking users of the English language Wikipedia. This might add to the burden on the capital disambig page though, and I'm not going to push for it.Mattley 16:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

jesus christ, i will just add Capital in quotation. is that ok?-- the hammerspake

• It is very well known in English under both titles. Personally I think Das Kapital is a better title here, because 1. it is not hard to distinguish from the English title (it is pretty transparent), and 2. we already have an article on capital, the economic concept, and so this one would acquire the inelegant title of "Capital (book)". I prefer the German over that, personally. --Fastfission 03:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard it caled anything but Das Kapital and I'm English.GordyB 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Written in Germany?

Das Kapital ("Capital") is a very large treatise of political economy written by Karl Marx in Germany. - I think, that this is not true. First publishing was in Germany, but Marx had written it in England. I´m not sure, but Encarta and few other sites say this. So what do you think?--jilm 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Good spotting. The sentence originally said in German. It was changed to in Germany by an anonymous user here [1]. It's definitely wrong.Mattley 11:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Critique

I've spent the last 20 hours reading Wikipedia articles and have noticed that all mature articles on publications and authors include a section on literary or political critique, usually both. Why is this controversial work missing that? It makes me wonder if the much made of IPOV standard is a case of the lady protesting too much.

It's because internet wanna-be intellectuals and hippie college students are drawn to popular representations of Marx, including both pop art such as the ubiquitous Che and the misconception that he represents kindness vs evil capitalism. Sadly most people who profess the religion of Marx have either not read his writing or not understood the pathetically flawed arguments behind it because his horribly contorted writing style is very confusing. You will find a pervasive POV bias in favor of Marxism in many wikipedia articles. Likewise anti-Americanism, which shares similar popularity among the uneducated and uninterested.

No, it is a case of starting from faulty premisses. It is not the case that "all mature articles on publications and authors include a section on literary or political critique, usually both." There is no requirement to have such a section to comply with NPOV and it is often a sign of bad editing where such sections exist - such critiques are often added in an attempt to further a particular POV and turn articles into debates, which is emphatically not the purpose of an encyclopedia. By the way, new comments are added to the bottom of talk pages, not to the top. Mattley ^(Chattley) 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a view unbecoming of any Wikipedia editor. The specific purpose of any encyclopedia is to bring extensive amounts of correct information about a subject, as long as that information is directly relevant to the subject being covered. An encylopedia in not at all about merely presenting a short and to the point introduction on a given subject. If anything, the logic you present in your former post relates exclusively to the opening section of this article and nothing else. The book of 'Das Kapital' has had a considerable impact on the world in several ways over the last century, and as a result there has been a substantial amount of response to it over time. Your statement about the adding of critiques supposedly turning an article into a so-called 'debate' is dubious if not incorrect, as well. If a subject has been intensely debated then there obviously has been cause for this debate to have been provoked in the first place, and as such that debate has simply become a part of the context of the subject over time. An encyclopedic article which covers a subject, known throughout the world to be controversial and heavily debated, without even merely mentioning the nature of that controversy and the causes and origins of that debate is simply incomplete and 'stubbed'. Which in turn makes its position as an 'encyclopedic' article uncertain alltogether. --81.240.55.213 14:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: One thing that I will agree with, however, is that a section dedicated to the responses to the work in general will be preferable. Thus, the positive responses should, obviously, make mention of the various political schools of thought that were born from it while providing relative links both internal and external, whilst the more negative reactions which form the other half of the work its legacy are obviously to be given the same treatment. --81.240.55.213 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, two points here: first, he is right, its not really necesary to place a criticism sectio in every little article, as it is very subjective on users rather than in a real effort of knoledge. Secondly, if anyone finds a real critique abotu Das Kapital, then place it. And on the user that went "hippies and liberals like it but didnt even read it", shame on you man, cos you havent read it either and talk about it like you have (how hipocrit).

[edit] Das Kapital, the anti-Bible

If you happen to believe the values in the Bible represent the ultimate good, then surely Das Kapital is your anti-Bible. You could also call it the anti-Torah, anti-Quran (well maybe not) etc, because no other book has been used so successfully to promote evil and ignorance throughout the world. The arguments presented by Marx are infantile, easily discarded with basic math and the axiom of free will, and bastardizations of both economics and philosophy. Sadly, continuing dominance of Marx in academia is tantamount to a modern day Flat-Earth church.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.5.249 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Its rather odd that you would compare it with the bible, wich has been the target of more than one philosopher as a book that requires and demands ignorance from their readers (Nietzche, for example made a huge case against christians). For example if we speak of times of great ignorance, we talk about the middle ages, when it was all about the bible or plato and aristotle, in wich people were not allowed to put in trial anything that appeared in the bible itself (and that age lasted around a thousand years, and even more). Today we live in times of practical atheism, even you are an atheist my son, a person can believe in god, but will still buy things like life insurances (wont god protect me and my loving family?, maybe not). As i read most of what you have sayd, i believe you are confussing yourself a little, and i have the striking impression that you must be a conservative america (just a guess there).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.171.8 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The bible has been used to promote violence and evil. Marx stated that revolution would come as the proleteriat rose up to take the means of production, whereas, Soviet communism and its ilk, was communism from above. I find it funny that communism is still so frightening, anything can be perverted so that it barely resembles the idea that it was founded upon. Yes, there is no doubt that Stalin's communism was very scary. In the same vein, the bible as also been distorted. If anyone actually read it they would see that there are many morally and ethically questionable things in there where we pick the good stuff and leave out the rest. On another note, why was anti-Quran not considered by the guy a couple of posting above? Millions of Musilms live peacefully using the Quran. I agree with the person above that the poster was most likely a conservative religious American.

[edit] Why is this considered a "harmful" book?

As far i'm concerned, this book ironically brought way more benefits to capitalism rather than the opposite.