Talk:List of contributors to Marxist theory

merge

Should this list be merged with List of notable Marxist theorists? -- Hesychast

Who deserves to be on this list?

Inbloom2 recently removed quite a few names that I had added to the list. The justification for this move was that the names Inbloom2 removed were "not prominents, and most of them aren't 'marxists' but only influenced by Marx or marxism." I reverted this removal, for the following reasons:

1. A great many of the people Inbloom2 removed are indeed "prominent," provided that prominence is understood to be relative. Terry Eagleton, for instance, is very prominent among Marxist literary critics. Michael Hardt is a major figure in globalization studies; his book Empire is practically required reading for anyone interested in globalization and contemporary theory.

1. Marxism doesn't require membership cards. Besides, the list is titled "List of contributors to Marxist theory," not "List of died-in-the-wool Marxists." Every single one of the people whom Inbloom2 deleted has contributed significantly to Marxist theory; many of them, in fact, are listed under the heading "Marxism" in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (ISBN 0-393-97429-4)—and given the Norton anthologies role in canonization, mention in the Norton seems enough to warrant both "prominence" and "legitimacy."

I would also mention in closing that a list like this would provide a better service to its readers by emphasizing breadth rather than exclusivity. Although there was a time when determining who counts as a Marxist was a fairly straightforward matter, that moment has past. Marxism today—like feminism, like postcolonial studies, like cultural studies, like theory in general, like the "new social movements" and other forms of resistance and leftist activity—is far from being some kind of monolithic, uniform entity. Rather, it exists in manifold contexts, each time taking a different form unique to the specific context in which it arises. This list should reflect that reality. Job L 18:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Job L is correct. Marxism does not have a static or fixed definition: it changes with every specific historical situation. The names mentioned above are certainly important Marxist scholars in their respective fields. Houndstooth McGovern 00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I mainly agree with you, but "contributors to Marxist theory" isn't "scholars influenced by marxism" (or by Marx) - which is a list that can be created. --Inbloom2 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored both Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong to the list of Marxist theorists. Is it really necessary to point out that both made significant contributions to Marxist theory as well as being political leaders? That most of us do not find their theories palatable doesn't alter the fact that they made a contribution and ought to appear in this list. I see that a couple of editors are engaged in a series of push-me pull-me struggles over other names. If you wish to remove Stalin and/or Mao, please discuss your rationale here first. Many thanks, DionysosProteus (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Stalinists, not a single Marxologist, and not one historian of Marxist theory include them as "contributors to Marxist theory". --Inbloom2 (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for such an absurd claim? Their contributions are out there in print. When I studied Marxism at university, they were on the syllabus. Why? Because the lecturer attempted a NPOV. So should we here. Unless you can provide a source that says that their many publications on Marxist theory don't count for some reason, they ought to appear here. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DionysosProteus, don't bother asking for things like evidence from Inbloom2, or indeed expect reasoning, logic or coherency of any kind. He is simply an axe-grinding holy warrior whose only reason for being on WP is for waging his personal jihad on reality. Appeals to NPOV are sheer futility. The paucity of his contributions can attest to this. Of course, his only recourse is to finally cry "Stalinist" ... ho hum.

Aside from the condescending response from the above unsigned and dionysosproteus. There have been notable modern theorists/philosophers that have been influenced by Mao while not necessarily considering themselves Maoists (Zizek and Badiou are probably most notable today). However, Stalin was a notable Marxist politician but he is NOT a notable theorist. In fact he is rather known for his willingness not to adhere to a single orthodoxy but constantly change and manipulate (Leninist) theory as he saw fit at the moment. Ho hum. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Shibdas Ghosh

Currently there is a debate going on in the Talk:Shibdas Ghosh whether one Shibdas Ghosh is a "Marxist Ideologist". In my opinion it doesn't even deserve to be called a Fringe Theory. I have almost lost interest talking to this user and admin has now semi protected the article. Someone please look at it as it might soon spill over here.220.227.207.32 (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Debord/ Castoriadis

"Anselm Jappe rejects recent attempts to set Debord up as a 'postmodern' icon, arguing that he was a social theorist in the Hegelian-Marxist tradition—not a precursor of Jean Baudrillard but an heir of the young Georg Lukács of History and Class Consciousness (1923)."

Cover of: Anselm Jappe: Guy Debord 1999.

"Cornelius Castoriadis schreibt im Paradigma des Marxismus, welches er zwar radikal destruiert, jedoch in einigen Aspekten, z.B. der Rätedemokratie zu retten versucht."

"Cornelius Castoriadis writes within the Marxist paradigm, which he, while distructing it radically, tries to save in some aspects, e.g. the counsel democracy."

Sven Papke, Georg W. Oesterdiekhoff, Schlüsselwerke der Soziologie, VS 2001, page 79

--Schwalker (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC) edited, --Schwalker (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim Il Sung

Kim belongs here. In order for a theorist to be included here, I think there needs to be three criteria satisfied:

• Is the theorist a Marxist?
• Is the theorist notable?
• Did the theorist contribute something novel to the corpus of Marxism as a whole?

Lets take these one at a time.

Kim is a Marxist

Kim propounded what he called the Juche idea, which is the official ideology of the Workers Party of Korea. Some of the textual evidence for the claim that it is a development and/or re-conceiving of Marxist theory is as follows.

"The new outlook on the world established by the Juche philosophy does not deny the world outlook of dialectical materialism."

"The Juche view of the world that the world is dominated and transformed by man is inconceivable separately from the materialistic dialectical understanding of the essence of the objective material world and the general law of its motion."

"the world outlook of the materialistic dialectics is the premise for the Juche philosophy"

"Our scientists and people must study and follow the Juche philosophy, but they must also know the philosophical ideas of Marxism-Leninism."

Source: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/readb/108.pdf

Obviously, this condition has been satisfied.

Notability of Kim's Theories

The second thing we should determine, 'is Kim notable, according to the standards of Wikipedia?' There are more than adequate facts for resolving this question in the affirmative.

1. Juche is the official ideology of the government of the DPRK, a country of 23 million people. This is a feat that very few of the other thinkers here can boast of. Hence, on the strength of this fact alone Kim ought to be included here.

2. Juche is internationally significant. During the Cold War, the DPRK occupied an ideological middle ground between the USSR and the PRC, while claiming to uphold "anti-revisionism" through the Juche concept. In the modern day, the Nepal Workers Peasants Party, which has representation in Nepal's Parliament, is ideologically close to the DPRK. At the website of the Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK, you can see reporting on many "Juche Seminars" held around the globe (example). Finally, a quick review of the Korean Friendship Association website shows the international character of that organization.

3. As far as Juche being a "philosophy" in its own right, there are seminars, journals, institutes and all the other trappings that accompany various "respectable" schools of thought propagated by thinkers featured on this page and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Novelty of Juche

Now, I have already shown above that Marxism is an intrinsic feature of Juche above. So we can't debate that aspect. As far as Kim inventing something new and novel, there are a variety of pages on the web that attempt to explicate Juche. For example:

1.The Origin of the Juche Idea

2.The Philosophical Principle of the Juche Idea

3.The Socio-Historical Principles of the Juche Ides (sic)

4.The Guiding Principles of the Juche Idea

5.The Historic Significance of the Juche Idea

This is just one website. There are plenty of others which can be uncovered with a simple Google search.

Taking all of these things together, we can see that Kim Il Sung is clearly the author of a notable body of work within the Marxist milieu, albeit overlaid with influences from Hegel and Confucius and seemingly informed by Hobbes and Machiavelli.

As a final note, Kim's status as a Marxist is independent from his status as a politician, a dictator, his left-handedness, etc. etc., which are strictly speaking irrelevant to the matter at hand.

--Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My objection has principally been in terms of Kim being Marxist, modified dialectical materialism will eventually cease to be related to the Marxist tradition, see the degradation of right trotskyism in the US as an example. I feel the Notability of Kim's ideology is suspect, it should be notable of itself as theory instead of reliant upon state force. (For example, Stalin's Short Course History is notable in terms of its normative description of party life, not due to Stalin's political role.) However this is raised in point three, the novelty of Juche. The works cited, being an unattributed series of treatises not of scholarly length with no attributed academic publisher are clearly unacceptable. The entire proposition that he is a theorist hangs on him producing theory. Citations needed meeting the disciplinary standards of academic publication, or of a suitable review publication meeting academic standards.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Grace Lee "The Political Philosophy of Juche" Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs Volume 3 (1) Spring 2003 105-112 May be useful as a citation in particular 108-110, 111-112; but fails to adequately address a sufficiently deep connection of Juche to Marxism. I'm happy for Juche to be non-determinist Marxism, but then to claim an inflated role for individual consciousness in history, it stretches the bow to breaking. More, better, sources required. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses inline.

...modified dialectical materialism will eventually cease to be related to the Marxist tradition

There are plenty of avowed Marxists who disclaim dialectics altogether. See Analytical Marxism for example. So that seems entirely insufficient grounds for objection. But never mind about that. On what basis are you claiming that Kim "modified" dialectical materialism? And how does that square with the quotes I sourced above, which clearly state that Juche "does not deny" and is "inconcievable" without dialectical materialism?

I feel the Notability of Kim's ideology is suspect, it should be notable of itself as theory instead of reliant upon state force.

This sentiment seems totally unreasonable to me, and unenforceable on Wikipedia in practice. Virtually all notable political theories have become notable in light of them being sponsored by some "state power" at some point in time. To take your advice, we'd have to remove Federalism, Monarchism, Leninism, Fascism, and every other theory that has come on the scene until the present time, save Anarchism perhaps. Sorry, thats too bizarre. But even if I agreed with you here, we don't have that problem. Those websites that I provided you above are based in Japan and India. Moreover, the Korean Friendship Association is run from Spain. And last I checked, neither Japan, India, or Spain was run by Jucheists!

Citations needed meeting the disciplinary standards of academic publication, or of a suitable review publication meeting academic standards.

Really! Please show me the Wikipedia guidelines that state this to be the case. And while you are at it, you might want to let the maintainers of various wikipedia entries that their pages are not up to standards!

--Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Last to first. The issue here is Marxist theory, not popular culinary practice, US popular culture (which *is* attestable through peer reviewed articles in Literature and Sociology), or Final Fantasy. Marxist theory speaks into two discourses of verification: 1) Polemic. 2) Academia. Google Scholar and Google do not show that a polemic exists within Marxism around Juche. The least ideological claim gets kicked to the teeth in the Trotskyist, Maoist, Stalinist, Leninist, Councilist, Anarchist. Juche does not speak into this polemic. Okay, fine, so we've got non-polemical marxists, say, Marcuse. So where's the Review Articles, the assessments, etc. They don't appear. Institutionalist / Liberal criqitues from the US, less finessed than in the 1960s; and a bunch of Foreign Language Press articles. A reading of the Foreign Press articles demonstrate much use of the word Marxist, but nothing approaching a marxist analysis in *any* mode I know.

Are you trying to say that Lenin's works are not self-sufficient separate to his later conquest of power? Really? Next you'll tell me Kautsky's irrelevant. The possession of state power does not define a theory's relevance to social critique. Its an argumentum ad bacculum of the worst kind. If Juche is Marxist Theory, then it will be theory, and will stand on its own legs. Grace Lee, who I cited, in his review article notes that the major strains of criticism of Juche see it in relation to instrumentalist statism, classical Korean responses in the feudal era to dominant neighbouring powers, and an attempt to claim marxist heritage as an appeal to authority. Merely possessing state power does not make it theory. And from what I can see of theory:

The theoretical content is so unrelated to Marxism as to not bear the name. Its main claim is an appeal to authority to dialectical materialism, while claiming the potential for a single individual (a powerful leader) to transform history. This is entirely non-cogent with any Marxism I have encountered.

Finally, the Foreign Press articles may be reproduced or hosted in Spain, India or Japan, but their origin is North Korean. They are suspect not because of their content (though their content is trivial and fails to meet the theoretical contribution of say Stalin or Mao, and the pieces you have posted fit into an academic genre which in all countries is of the lowest grade of scholarship, the "collection in honour of")--they are suspect because it is a single sourced account. As the "democratic" countries hosting these sites claim a formal democratic process, there's no wonder that Juche supporters can run a website out of those countries... and geographic diversity is not of importance here. We don't need to take Stalin's self-perception as a Marxist, we can read the many review articles slating his "Linguistics" for being poor Marxism. We don't need to take Mao's words, there are many celebrations from many traditions of his contributions, hostile and positive. Even if Paul Mattick didn't have review collections, we could identify him as Marxist through his participation in the left-communist polemics of the 1930s.

Show me review articles or polemics not originating within the Jucheist tradition which claim Juche to be Marxist and a Theory. This is the key. I've searched, I found a few haunting citations through Scholar, which are entirely unreliable as they do not connect to any real document. There is a critique of the First Juche-ist speech in a Korean review, which is unavailable online and in no library I can access. Grace Lee's review article is entirely non-conclusive (and I'd suggest of such a poor scholarly quality that I wouldn't esteem it if it described Juche as Marxist Theory or as not Marxist Theory). Provide real cites. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I figured as much. You can't point me to this "academic citation" requirement for WP, because there is no such thing. Therefore, while it certainly would be nice to accommodate your demand, I'm under no such obligation, insofar as "academic", "scholarly" journals have no monopoly on WP:NN nor WP:V. To say nothing of the facts. The sources I've already provided are satisfactory. Kim stays. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this idea of yours that Kim is a not a Marxist. Usually, when people say things like "p is not really a q", it is not because p is outside the scope of what they think q entails, but because they feel that their own idea of what q entails is different from what p says a q entails. In your case, it is expressed here as "p is a q if and only if r says p has the characteristic of being a q." But as WP:V notes, the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As it is, this list is already a hopeless mishmash of contradictory and discordant "Marxisms" -- not only what r thinks q is, but also what s, t, u and v says q is. Hence, it is not possible to sort out a "true" q from a "fake" q, where q is verifiable, without discarding NPOV. But luckily, that is fine as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Rather, q is taken to be whatever the set of {r,s,t,u,v...} says q is, where the set {r,s,t,u,v...} is the sum of all verifiable sources. Thus, when measured on the scale of verifiability alone, the statement "Juche is a Marxist theory" is trivially provable, alongside "Permanent Revolution is a Marxist theory", "Autonomism is a Marxist theory", and so on and so forth, because all of those statements have sufficiently verifiable sources. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For permanent revolution, the people who incorporate permanent revolution into Marxism are demonstrably not only those who hold the theory of permanent revolution. For Juche, you have only supplied sources that are generated by those who support Juche itself. Single sourced and self-declared. Radically insufficient.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is incoherent. You have just written the equivalent of "For Spanish, those people whose mother-tongue is Spanish are not only those people whose mother-tongue is Spanish. For French, only for those people whose mother-tongue is French is their mother-tongue French." Which is just a long winded way to say nothing in particular -- let alone apropos to the matter at hand.

What is clear is that you really, really do not want Kim Il Sung on this list. You simply haven't given a legitimate reason according to the criteria of WP, as yet. --02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibarrutidarruti (talk • contribs)

Single source verification is correct. Self-catagorisation is insufficient for truth, and insufficient for verifiability, and the sources you have listed cursorially deal with "Marxism-Leninism" as an empty and dead phrase. WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." "Reliable sources Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I've cited policy, on the basis of WP:V I will be removing it. The sources you have indicated are not third-party, until you supply third party sources, I will be reverting you under WP:V on this, and continued inclusion of the material without third party sources will result in me pursuing you through appropriate Wikipedia measures.

I greatly anticipate your discovery of third party sources; and will welcome your contribution when it meets WP:V. I really do not want Kim Il Sung on this list without adequate referencing. With adequate referencing, I ardently desire this list to be complete, which would be an inclusion. After we resolve this we should go through other contestable Marxist theorists here with a similar fine tooth comb.04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found a potentially appropriate citation external to Juche theory, at http://arts.monash.edu.au/korean/ksaa/conference/33kwangshickkang.pdf which was published as an element of The Second Biennial Conference of Korean Studies Association of Australasia, 2001, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. The subject of the paper is dead on, its "Third-party" and much superior to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/166_9008.html as a work due to its explanation in depth. Haven't determined what it says yet. Will report back. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is vague on actually making an academic judgement or analysis. Its bibliography leads to Dae-Sook Suh Kim Il Sung: the North Korean leader Columbia University Press 1988 ISBN 0231065736, 9780231065733 as the review on GoogleBooks claims, "The author spends considerable time outlining Kim's political thought (known as chuch'e, which is roughly translated as ""basis for action""), which aided in establishing his ascendancy. Suh analyzes Kim's thought and finds it to be both an inadequate exposition of nationlism and having little relevance to Marxism-Leninism; at best, it is a platform of Korean self-reliance." If someone can find a copy of ISBN 0231065736 to produce a citation, we can resolve this.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is really taking on a sideshow quality in my opinion. The problem is that you are committing a fallacy of composition error here. That Marxism is used as an analytic framework by certain (western) academics does not mean that only (western) academics have something useful to say about Marxism per se. Marxism is not a product of the academy in the way that say, Logical Positivism or Postmodernism is, and as such, academic citations have correspondingly less weight in "proving" something about Marxism over some other kind of source than the latter frameworks. Are they useful? Yes. Are they the "be all end all"? No.

The irony, of course is a cursory examination of the citations I provided show the presence of plenty of "academic" types, such as Bruno Amoroso, who is Professor Emeritus at Roskilde University in Denmark as well as the VP of the European Regional Society for the Study of the Juche Idea; and Dr. Harish Gupta, who is the Secretary General, Asian Regional Institute of the Juche Idea, etc. etc. Not that they or their citations resolves anything one way or the other. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Amoroso who has nothing published indexed in Google Scholar, who you haven't cited. ERSSJI is single sourcing, and breaks WP policy. Harish Gupta shows nothing through Scholar, and ARISJI is single sourcing. Additionally

1. ^ http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/readb/108.pdf

   Single sourced, unacceptable

2. ^ http://www3.cnet-ta.ne.jp/j/juche/pdf/e-works2.pdf

   Single sourced, unacceptable

3. ^ http://arts.monash.edu.au/korean/ksaa/conference/33kwangshickkang.pdf

   Fails to substantiate, unacceptable

4. ^ http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal3/korea1.pdf

   "Conclusion: Despite the repeated and strong emphasis on juche’s loyalty to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, juche as philosophical thought does

not strictly adhere to Marxist-Leninist principles as North Korea purports."

1. Additionally miscited, as lacks any bibliographic materials

   As this disproves your repeated and misfaithful inclusion, I am deleting Sung, and putting you up on 3RR.

2. ^ http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/039th_issue/98042208.htm

   Single sourced, fails to include the term "marx"

3. ^ http://juche.v.wol.ne.jp/studyofe.htm

   "Publishing Office: International Institute of the Juche Idea" single sourced, table of contents for 2000-2009 fails to include term "marx"

4. ^ http://www.asianregionaljucheinstitute.com/

   Single sourced, fails to include term Marx on head page--failed citation for verification.

This debate is over. The only source you listed citing Marx that wasn't single (ie: self) sourced argued that Juche is not Marxist, and was accepted in publication of an academic journal not associated with supporting or opposing the Juche idea: ie, credible.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you actually READ what I have to say. If you did, you would understand it doesn't matter a whit that Bruno Amoroso is listed in Google Scholar or not. As I said earlier, it doesn't settle the thing either way.

You can make up as many arbitrary rules as you want, they will not substantively alter the facts of the matter. I'll just say that the idea that something is not Marxist theory because it does not incant "Marx" or any other magic formula a sufficient number of times is totally absurd. I am sure that Zizek, Badiou, Terry Eagleton and the rest of your precious academics who attended the recent "Idea of Communism" conference hosted at the Birkbeck Institute will be shocked and frightened to find out that they are not Marxists! After all, there is no mention of the term Marx on the conference web page.

But whether it is having only the "right kind" of citations, or saying some magical key word the requisite number of times, I suspect that your quest for some kind of master key that doesn't really exist in real life flows from your misunderstanding of what this page should be about. In qualifying the respective entries you seem to be searching for the true signposts of Marxist Theory in virtue of it being Marxist Theory. But even if this was not a completely futile endeavor, the real purpose of this page is much more mundane - that is, to be a list of marxist theorists. And by these criteria -- "marxist", "theorist" -- the answer to whether Kim belongs here is pretty obvious. As GlobalSecurity.org states,

“ President Kim Il Sung adopted a policy of ostensible diplomatic and economic "self-reliance" as a check against excessive Soviet or Communist Chinese influence and molded political, economic, and military policies around the core ideological objective of eventual unification of Korea under Pyongyang's control. … the invocation of chuch'e was a psychological tool with which to stigmatize the foreign-oriented dissenters and remove them from the center of power. Targeted for elimination were groups of pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese anti-Kim dissenters. … chuch'e was presented as a "creative" application of Marxism-Leninism. In his attempt to establish an interrelationship between Marxism-Leninism and chuch'e, Kim contended that although Marxism-Leninism was valid as the fundamental law of revolution, it needed an authoritative interpreter to define a new set of practical ideological guidelines appropriate to the revolutionary environment in North Korea. ”

…and so on and so forth.

Now, after setting aside all your made up rules ("needs to say Marx on the head page"), the entire crux of your argument is nothing more than a run of the mill ad hominem fallacy, and a rather puerile one at that. Saying that x is not reliable because it is in reality a "single source" actually being churned out by North Korean propaganda mills is meaningless red-baiting so long as you have no evidence for it.

Last thing, it takes two to tango. Be careful when you start throwing around 3RR's.

Have a nice day!

--Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Is Kim Il Sung a Marxist who (notably) theorized?

see discussion above. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to say Kim does not merit inclusion on the basis of the discussion above. Per WP:PRIMARY, it would be inappropriate to include someone on this list referencing on their own works (and, implicitly, a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of them). For inclusion, they should be mentioned in a secondary source (i.e. another source writing about them), that says that the person in question as notable as a contributor to Marxist theory. If you believe one of the sources listed above meets the criteria I have just outlined, please restate it briefly below, preferably with the relevant quote that you consider to support this. Savidan 18:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, your conclusion seems difficult to arrive at in light of the actual evidence. All of the following data points are basically available on the first page/home page of the respective sources:

· http://arts.monash.edu.au/korean/ksaa/conference/33kwangshickkang.pdf

Kwang-Shick Kang

The Academy of Korean Studies

From Wikipedia:

"Academy of Korean Studies is a South Korean research and educational institute with the purpose of establishing profound research on Korean culture. It was established in June 22, 1978 by Ministry of Education & Science Technology of South Korea (교육과학기술부).[1] "

· http://juche.v.wol.ne.jp/studyofe.htm

"Study of the Juche Idea", journal

Published: April 15, 1978

Publishing Office: International Institute of the Juche Idea

Address: 2-47-7-903, Minami-Ikebukuro, Toshima-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN

Tel./Fax.: +81-3-3981-3192

· http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/juche.htm

From Wikipedia:

"GlobalSecurity.org, launched in 2000, is a public policy organization whose mission is to be a reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security. Offering its information products through its website, the organization's editorial office is located in Alexandria, Virginia, USA. The current Senior Fellow on Homeland Security is Andrew Fois."

· http://www.asianregionaljucheinstitute.com/

Asian Regional Institute of the Juche Idea

12th Floor, Akash Deep,

26-A, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

Dr. Vishwanath, Director General

Dr. Harish Gupta , Secretary General

Telephone  :+91-11- 23272324, 23272325,

Fax  : +91-11-23279429,

E-mail  : arijidelhi@gmail.com,

Website  : http://www.asianregionaljucheinstitute.com

et cetera.

Thanks for responding! Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why the above information is relevant. Can you just provide one quote from a secondary source that names him as a notable contributor? Savidan 04:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you said, "Per WP:PRIMARY, it would be inappropriate to include someone on this list referencing on their own works". Obviously, GlobalSecurity.org, The Asian Regional Juche Institute, and the Academy of Korean Studies are not Kim Il Sung. All of the sources I mention state the equivalent of Juche being a "creative application of Marxism-Leninism" (GlobalSecurity.org's words). --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Second, the above isn't relevant as its Juche defining Juche. Additionally, doing searches for "Marx" produces nothing except blanket statements which are unexplored. Ie: The subject of the articles is not Juche's status as Marxist Theory or not; an unsubstantiated line in a secondary source is not verifiability; nor is an unsubstantiated line in a secondary source from within the system-of-ideas under dispute. None of this overcomes the issue presented in Grace Lee, "The Political Philosophy of Juche" Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs 3:1 (2003): 111 "Despite the repeated and strong emphasis on juche’s loyalty to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, juche as philosophical thought does not strictly adhere to Marxist-Leninist principles as North Korea purports." Find better sources from outside of Juche. Dae-Sook Suh Kim Il Sung: the North Korean leader Columbia University Press 1988 ISBN 0231065736's findings as quoted in a review above are a difficult hurdle to overcome. Globalsecurity's capacity to speak to Marxism would be highly in doubt.

Kim must be a theorist of Marxism who is notable in his theorisation of Marxism. That he was, at some stage, a Marxist is beyond doubt. That he was a theorist is beyond doubt (Juche is a theory). That he presented a theorisation of Marxism is debatable, if this theorisation is Juche, then it must be demonstrated that Juche is Marxist theory in reputable sources which lie outside of Juche, or which through a process of accepted peer review (Journal, Academic publisher) where the Journal or Publisher is not a mouthpiece for Juche, demonstrates that the academic reviewing community believes the statement to be adequately academic and not polemic. The notability of Juche as a theory is beyond reproach, its inherently notable due to its effects over a state (and even without state power, would probably be notable for its interesting take on the role of the leading individual in history). Cite Gupta if you can find him in a non Juche-idea journal. Cite Kwang-Shick Kang if you can find a source which speaks to the issue.—This is part of a comment by Fifelfoo , which was interrupted by the following:

"Cite Gupta if you can find him in a non Juche-idea journal." <-- this is the distilled essence of your fallacious reasoning on this matter, and why you remain incorrect. I'm not going to go over it yet again with you: if you want to do that, just scroll up. While I see your "argument" as a confused mass of ad hominem and composition fallacies, you obviously continue to see some merit in your objection. Fine. Either way, repetitively going over the same old ground over and over again is not proving productive. I'd rather hear some other perspectives on this discussion. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See also Eun Hee SHIN, "Life and Communitarianism: A North Korean Juche Perspective," International Conference on Peace for Life in North East Asia, Korea Christian Faculty Fellowship 15. – 19. May 2005 at Roman Catholic Retreat Center, Uiwang, Korea, p2 [1] "Juche thought has been traditionally interpreted as a “Marxist-Leninist political ideology,” but such notion, in my view, falls widely short of reality today. Although Juche thought captures some essential elements of Marxist-Leninist concepts of the Party and the masses, Juche deviates from Marxist-Leninist philosophy through its alternative interpretation of history in which people’s subjectivity is a higher category than class-struggle." Fifelfoo (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is questioning that Juche has some novel aspects. In fact it is its very novelty that is the reason why it is included here. Otherwise, what is the point? If every slight deviance from Marx/Lenin/Whomever was grounds for disqualification from this list, nobody but Marx/Lenin/Whomever would be on this list. But what nobody can deny is the unparalleled influence of Marxist-Leninist philosophical concepts, terminology, historical development, normative standards of party life, etc. have on Juche. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

June 09 Dubious project

Debate over a particular individual's verifiability has lead me to consider the looseness of this list in terms of its header.

Dubious

These require linking the theoretical contribution, debatability of the marxism of the contribution, and the contribution's notability or presence within Marxist Theory

Walter Benjamin

Corresponding with Marxists is insufficient, question of the contribution of his body of work to Marxist Theory as such

Sigh, someone who knows anything about Marxist Theory knows that Walter Benjamin is considered as a Marxist Theorist, e.g. look at the program of a conference in 2008 about Benjamin --Schwalker (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Double sigh. Your cited Conference program has a one line statement that's not authorative. I'm still working on it but "apparent to all" isn't good enough. Susan Buck-Morss The dialectics of seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades project MIT 1991 is extremely hedgey about his Marxism.

12:<quote>He was bound to find intellectually barren and uninteresting [positivist Marxism.] And yet despite this, his persistent criticism [...]touched close to the Marxist perception.</quote>Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History are quite central to the conception of history of current Marxists such as, to name an example, Slavoj Zizek (The Sublime Object of Ideology, Verso, 2008, pg. 151 and following.) I think this citation is good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.208.78 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Kollontai

Politician, non-notability of Red Love &tc.

Partially resolved with: Ebert, Teresa L. "Left of Desire" in Cultural Logic: An Electronic Journal of Marxist Theory and Practice, 3:1-2 (1999): at §5¶52-53, Online: http://clogic.eserver.org/3-1&2/ebert.html last accessed: 20090704. would prefer a better citation (Introduction to collected / selected works by non Soviet publisher; article explicitly "Kollontai's contribution to Marxist Theory" etc.). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sylvia Pankhurst

Politician, non-notability of theoretical contribution

Jan Wacław Machajski

Need an appreciation of him as a marxist theorist, or that his theory was critically essensial to marxist theory, due to anarchism

George Derwent Thomson

Notability of theoretical contribution

Sam Marcy

Notability of theoretical contribution; presence of theoretical contribution (as opposed to polemical)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifelfoo (talk • contribs) 04:44, 17 June 2009

Che

Notability of contribution to marxist theory as opposed to military science. Difficulty in finding citations due to his status as a saint. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Joseph Stalin

Need a third party reliable for Linguistics

Please look at my answers in Template talk:Marxist theory#Stalin and Mao. --Schwalker (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Read, responded at location, intending to cite:

• Ben Agger "Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance" Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 17: 105-131 (doi:10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000541) for Stalin as a Theorist and
• M.B. Mitin, M.D. Kammari, G.F. Aleksandrovis "The Contribution of J.V. Stalin to Marxism-Leninism" trans 'Inter'[pseud.] in 'The Seventieth Anniversary of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin', published in Izvestia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seria Istorii i Filosofii, Tom VII, Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow, 1950, pp. 3-30. http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/stalin70.htm for Stalin as notable for Nationalities.

The Agger article mentions Stalin, but doesn't speak to who theoretical contributions. Where in the article does it actually talk about Stalin's theoretical contributions? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bertolt Brecht

Marxist and Theorist of the theatre, question of the contribution of his theory to Marxist Theory

For instance see Louis Althusser: The ‘Piccolo Teatro’: Bertolazzi and Brecht Notes on a Materialist Theatre, it shows that Brecht's theory is considered as Marxist by Althusser. But there is much more evidence for Brecht being an important contributor to marxist theory.--Schwalker (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Althusser's sufficient, it overcomes my fear that Brecht's contributions could be limited to contributions to the theatre, but Althusser clearly argues that Brecht's contribution is Marxist and philosophical. Added citation.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornelius Castoriadas

Notability of his Marxist contributions, extensive non-marxist theorist

See #Debord/ Castoriadis, --Schwalker (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Added as citation.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

José Carlos Mariátegui

notability of theoretical contribution

Towards resolution when I get a chance to read in full:

• The Contributions of Jose Carlos Mariategui to Revolutionary Theory, T Angotti - Latin American Perspectives, 1986 [2]: 34-36; 38-42.
• Introduction to Mariátegui, John Kraniauskas, Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies: Travesia, 1469-9575, Volume 10, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 303 – 304: all.

resolved by citations Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Bloch

Non obvious / notable contribution to Marxist theory, citation required.

RESOLVED Douglas Kellner and Harry O'Hara, "Utopia and Marxism in Ernst Bloch" New German Critique 9 (Autumn, 1976) 11-34: 11-13.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of Dubious tag

Listing folks such as Pankhurst, Thomson, Kollontai, Mariátegui and so on here is not dubious in the sense that WP cares about. That they are commonly known as "Marxists" and/or somehow associated with the "Marxist Tradition" as it is broadly construed is beyond doubt. As the relevant content guideline states, the dubious tag is for marking of statements where:

   * It contains unlikely information, without providing references.
   * It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
   * It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic

None of these conditions apply to any of the individuals that I mentioned.

Note that this is a separate question from whether or not they deserve to be called bona-fide "Marxist theorists." My understanding is that the tag is intended for things like perpetual motion machine claims, or perhaps a creationist claim in an article on morphology, and things of that nature. To be more specific to the subject matter, perhaps it would be dubious to claim that Obama belongs here, for instance. I think what you are really after is is the tag, for buttressing claims that they are indeed "Marxist theorists", and the page needs to be changed to reflect that. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation

Look at the Russian and German pages, their articles on all things related to Marxism are better than ours. It's odd to have some great socialist philosopher-king brought in by a neocon between a theatre theoritician and a western postmarxist humanist. We need categories like in the Russian, Turkish, Portuguese and German versions of the article.79.216.171.64 (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Eccentric and uneven inclusion of names

In my view, there are people in this list who shouldn't be here, and people who are not here who should be --where's Pol Pot, for example? -- but that's just my view. We ought to err on the side of inclusiveness: or, as Job L said, "a list like this would provide a better service to its readers by emphasizing breadth rather than exclusivity." The real problem is the vagueness of the concept "made a contribution to Marxist theory",'contribution' not being a neutral word, and 'theory' also lacking a sharp definition.

Perhaps a re-definition of the list as holding the names of "people whose self-description of their political worldview was 'Marxism', and who wrote something about it that others might want to read."Doug1943 20:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk • contribs)

I don't think Pol Pot is notable for his contribution to Marxist thought. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing some names

While it is difficult to determine who deserves to be on lists like this and who does not, certainly if the name on the list links to an article that is a stub or barely above a stub status, then that name probably does not warrant inclusion to this list. I am removing some names where this is the case. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding on what names should be included. This should be one of the requirements, however, not the only requirement, but the article that is linked to should be a Class B or up article and must be a high or top importance. This will help us weed out some of the fluff. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

good start...

But where's Terrell Carver? Jarius Banaji? Kevin B Anderson, Geert Reuten, Fred Mosley, Cyril Smith, Harry Cleaver, Simon Clarke, John Holloway, Michael Heinrich, Robert Brenner, Elmar Altvater, Werner Bonefeld, Enrique Dussel, Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.32.189 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Also where is Lucio Colletti? A brilliant but little known Italian Marxist. Could someone add him the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.216.112 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Added links to those names for ease of checking and adding. Also should be here: Thomas Sankara; Claudia Jones; Combahee River Collective BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Added Abimael Guzmán (Gonzalo)

I've added Abimael Guzmán (Gonzalo) to the list. I'm open to discussing whether or not he should be included, but in line with WP:BOLD and the unsourced inclusion of Jose Maria Sison, it should hardly be inconceivable that this inclusion is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersLeo (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I am adding a cn tag to his name. He's clearly notable and identified as a Marxist but I doubt there are independent sources showing he contributed significantly to Marxist theory. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Have also added cn tags for: İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Jim Kemmy, Yalçın Küçük, Edvard Kardelj, Kojin Karatani, Bijan Jazani, Jose Maria Sison, Mahdi Amel. I am in favour of including more names from outside Europe, but need to follow criteria as discussed earlier in this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly support the additional names added by Comradeka, but I don't think the sources added for Guzman and Sison are strong enough to warrant their inclusion in this list. We need independent, reliable sources. I also agree with Comradeka that the inclusion of Ocalan is dubious. Ocalan is influential, but is he influential on Marxist theory? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Hall? Huey Newton?

surely they deserve a place on this list? Thatjakelad (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)