Talk:On the Jewish Question

Changes going forward

A. I think it would be helpful to rename the existing article sections to make them more in line with better articles on Marx works, this will not be a “bold edit” as I will just be changing section names, not their content. Manboobies (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I have renamed one for now, to be in line with the communist manifesto article.--Manboobies (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

B. The main body section “2. history of publication” should be below “3. Interpretations” and “4. Reference to Müntzer”, because 3&4 are discussions of content, like 1., Manboobies (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with both of those proposals. The title is crystal clear: the article is about Marx' book. The order is appropriate, since background such as publication history are almost also dealt with first before plunging into content, but I don't feel strongly about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, should that Muntzer section still be there? How does his view that Marx liked animals have anything to do with whether Marx liked Jews? I'm confused. Any thoughts on this, Manboobies? It has been tagged for a loooong time.--FeralOink (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, having an entire subsection just about that is WP:UNDUE. Also, it is tagged as poorly sourced. Finally, it is confusing! It seems to be saying that the cited passage written by Marx (who references Muntzer) ACTUALLY means that Marx liked animals. Okay... but Marx also still is saying bad things about Jews and the bible, yes? Do we need it in the article, and in its own section no less? I think not.--FeralOink (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I was bold, and remedied the tagged section about Munzer.--FeralOink (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

reply to Volunteer Marek about undo

Hi Volunteer Marek. I didn't think it was redundant, but I don't feel strongly about it. If you do I can accept it. Sorry about not having an edit summary, I know I put one in originally, but then I went back to read it again and must have forgotten to put it back in. An honest mistake.  // Timothy::talk  05:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

NP, thanks. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be in the Antisemitism sidebar

If you have an opinion, please share at Template_talk:Antisemitism_sidebar#On_the_Jewish_Question-BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes! It should. Great idea, thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Despite Marx reflecting a widely held belief of his time, it is still anti-Semitic, in my opinion. The last two sentences of the essay called the "essential essence of Judaism" to be "huckstering" and that "The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism." It is not just critical of Judaism, it looks to be more anti-Judaism than anything.--Der under Smurf (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

He's quoting Bauer. Do you have any reading comprehension? Marx was critiquing the anti-semitic "jewish question" in his response titled "ON the 'jewish question'" and was QUOTING the anti-semitic tropes in order to respond to them. Karl Marx was Jewish. 69.113.236.26 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Uh, Der under Smurf *DOES* have reading comprehension! Don't be nasty. It clearly is of ZERO relevance that Karl Marx was born to Jewish parents and was (I presume) raised as a Jew. He was anti-Semitic, i.e. did not like Jews at all. He wrote about it in lots of other places and times, so I am not making a statement of opinion about this particular tract of his. By the way, the Antisemitism sidebar is on the article. As I stated in June 2022, I believe that it should remain there.--FeralOink (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

it is patently absurd that so many people fail at basic reading comprehension. Marx's response included references to Bauer's anti-semitic premise in order to critique it. Marx wrote "ON the Jewish Question" - a RESPONSE/CRITIQUE of something he considered to be wrong and idealist (not based in dialectical materialism, the framework of his own theories). leave it to WikiCIApedia to get something so basic so completely wrong. 69.113.236.26 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Quotation presented as single block quote is actually many quotes from the original text

The article here gives a single block of quotation which is not in the original text in as much as it is a grouping of separate quotes from the text. The quotation also seems to avoid some of the sympathetic language used by Marx and focuses almost exclusively on Marx's references to stereotypes. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

There's MOS:ELLIPSIS in the text, indicating it's not a "complete" quote. That's allowed. No opinion on "avoid some of the sympathetic language". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

No, the ellipses are not all in the correct places. Read the original text. I think this block quote's choice of passages and their incorrect order seems to be very deliberate to make the passages seem more openly offensive than they are. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

For example, the original text says

Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

The article text says

Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel,

Here, two passages are blended together without ellipses, conveniently missing over the argument in favor of the emancipation of Jewish people at the bottom of the original paragraph. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Corrected as Iron Maiden Rocks requested.--FeralOink (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed Sacks quote

Sacks later referred to Marxism as part of the mutating virus of antisemitism. Titanium Dragon (talk)

Thank you, Titanium Dragon. I removed the associated citation along with two others, see below. The pro-antisemite refs were glommed together with the anti-antisemite refs, all at the end of one sentence at the very end of the lead. in the beginning of the second sub-heading of the article Most of those citations are discussed later in the article, before the strange Muntzer quote about Marx liking animals (relevance here? lol) but the three below are not. I might include them as External Links. If you have thoughts about this, please share. Without accessing the books, it is impossible to tell which of the first two are of each view.--FeralOink (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I clarified what I meant about the Muntzer quote here. Sorry about my lack of umlauts.--FeralOink (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Muravchik, Joshua (2003). Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. San Francisco: Encounter Books. p. 164. ISBN 1-893554-45-7.
• Marvin Perry, Frederick M. Schweitzer. Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present. Palgrave Macmillan. (2005). ISBN 1-4039-6893-4 pp. 154–157
• Sacks, Jonathan (1997). The Politics of Hope. London: Jonathan Cape. pp. 98–108. ISBN 978-0-224-04329-8.

"Although others do not"

Is it not worth mentioning that both of the sources cited in support of the view that Marx's essay was not antisemitic are themselves self-avowed Marxists? They're hardly the most neutral sources for such a defense.

To rephrase, I hardly think two avowed Marxist scholars defending Marx against the charge of antisemitism constitutes a neutral defense of the claim made by non-Marxists.

If there were non-Marixst scholars who also defend that the essay is not antisemitic, would these not be *actually* neutral sources? KronosAlight (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all fair to assume that Marxist scholars are any less neutral than non-Marxist scholars on the issue, and in fact you could make the same argument about bias the other way round - it is perhaps worth noting that the source used to argue in favour of Marx's antisemitism on that very line is an article which also describes socialism as "the anti-Semitism of intellectuals" in a magazine often described as "neoconservative".

PaintTrash (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)