Template talk:Marxist theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Picture
| Part of the series on Marxism  |
| Sociology |
| Alienation |
| Antagonistic contradiction |
| Bourgeoisie |
| Class consciousness |
| Commodity fetishism |
| Exploitation |
| Labour power |
| Proletariat |
| Relations of production |
| Underconsumption |
Dunno what picture to use. Marx was good, until I put this template on Marxism, which meant there were two Marxes next to each other - ugly. Any ideas? -- infinity0 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Remove the Marx and Engels pictures from the introduction of the Marxism article and place them further down. :) Keep a Marx picture here... perhaps a different Marx picture. -- Nikodemos 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
How about creating a picture of a real hammer and a real sickle? -- infinity0 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Too Leninist, I think... how about that stylized fist-symbol? Like here. -- Nikodemos 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's see how it looks. Is it fair use? -- infinity0 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's in the public domain. Do a google image search for "socialism fist" and you'll find numerous different websites and organizations using that symbol. -- Nikodemos 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded that image; here's how it looks: What do you think? It makes the whole template red, which might not be that good. -- infinity0 12:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the picture of the semi-young marx is good here, on a side note I added Marxist feminism to the template.-RainyDayCrow
-
- I dunno. The picture of older-Marx is instantly recognizable--pretty much anyone would look at it and say, "Hey, that's Karl Marx!" Whereas I doubt anyone but historians or serious Marxists would recognize the picture of the younger Marx. It's not a good icon, precisely because it's too obscure. I mean, sure, people will say "It's in the Marxism box, I bet it's Karl Marx", but that's different. Narsil 22:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Red Stars, Hammers and Sickles and the rest of it
I think the template for this series should reflect the intellectual side Marxism which developed in the Twentieth Century, principally in Western Europe but also in America and elsewhere. This is not the same thing as the ‘religious-like’ Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist political movements which adorned themselves in these symbols.
My suggestion is that these symbols should NOT pepper this series of articles, but should be used to give the flavour to those political figures and movements which relished in them.
--PeterBowing 08:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
NB the people who have made the template have done an excellent job.
- Thank you :) I saw all these wonderfully detailed articles on Marxist theory, and thought that they deserve to be formally linked together somehow. -- infinity0 15:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Colours
Hmm... I'd have preferred it if the template was some shade of red, to link it with socialism. Guess it's just a personal preference and a slight touch of nostalgia for me, though. -- infinity0 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing the category 'Marxist politics'
I think the person who removed the section on Marxist politics (on the grounds that all Marxism was politics anyway) made a serious mistake. Academic Marxism, infusing sociology, economics, history etc. is distinct from Marxist politics which is the study of the strategies of political movements.
The concept ‘surplus value’ for instance is principally an economic or perhaps sociological concept, but the concept ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ on the other hand has little to do with explaining the world ‘as it is’ but is concerned with political thinking.
Of course I accept that many of topics on the list that fall into more than one category in the menu, and obviously on many of these issues there is not a consensus among Marxists themselves.
- Well, I dunno. I saw that there were two sections, Maxist philosophy and Marxist politics which both only had two links in each, and thought it was untidy too. Have a play around with the links and the categorisation - I don't really mind too much as long as it doesn't make the template look ugly. -- infinity0 17:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Important Marxists
I think perhaps this section should be removed seing as this template is meant to refer to the theory itself and not people such as Lenin or Adorno that interpretated it. Any views on this? Horses In The Sky talk contributions
Yes, but Lenin/Adorno did change or even "update"/"add" to Marxist philosophy greatly, whether you agree with them or not. W123 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Mao Zedong be on the list, seeing as he was a Marxist, created Maoism out of Marxism-Leninism and probably was the single most important person in history when it comes to spreading the Marxist ideas (even more so than Lenin and Stalin i believe).
[edit] Reification
Any objections if I add a link to reification in the box? I think it's a pretty central concept in modern interpretations of Marx's thought. The article at this point in time is a little short, but I plan to expand it in a few minutes. Just thought I'd propose this, though. Deleuze 05:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's *that* important; it seems to be a subcategory of "commodity fetishism". -- infinity0 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nice template
I just saw this box on Western Marxism. You lot have done well here. Thanks for this. --Duncan 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
