Talk:The German Ideology

[Untitled]

The repeated use of the term 'individuals' should really be avoided if possible for Marx. Does he begin with 'the individual'? No.

Ninjabeard (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Some summary of the arguments of the book would be nice. --Zslevi (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mention Marx not wanting to publish the GI

Marcello Musto in 'Marx for Today' (edited by Musto) writes 'once Marx had abandoned the idea of publishing the GI, he returned to the theory of aleiantion in Wage Labour and Capital' p.108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is 'abandoning the idea' the same as 'not wanting to publish it' - I don't think so. Possibly even the reverse. Ninjabeard (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014

Change 'The German Ideology (German: Die Deutsche Ideologie) is a book written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels around April or early May 1846.' to The German Ideology (German: Die Deutsche Ideologie) is a set of manuscripts written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels around April or early May 1846.

This better reflects current scholarly opinion that 'The German Ideology' is not a book, but rather a jumble of writings that later editors tried to turn into a book.

192.76.8.9 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Note this does not mean I endorse or oppose the edit I made. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Stickee (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Much of the language from the article's introduction seems to have been straight-up plagiarized from Robert Tucker's introduction to the text in the Marx-Engels Reader.

Compare the WP version, with the parts that seem plagiarized in boldface: "Part I, however, is a work of exposition giving the appearance of being the work for which the "Theses on Feuerbach" served as an outline. The work is a restatement of the theory of history Marx was beginning to call the "materialist conception of history". Since its first publication, Marxist scholars have found the work particularly valuable since it is perhaps the most comprehensive statement of Marx's theory of history stated at such length and detail."

And here's the language from Tucker:

"But Part I (here presented in full) is a different matter. Although polemical at various points, it is basically a work of exposition. It gives every appearance of being the work for which the "Theses on Feuerbach" served as an outline; hence we may infer that it was written by Marx. It is, in essence, a restatement, minus much of the German philosophical terminology, of the theory of history adumbrated in the manuscripts of 1844. Marx now calls it the 'materialist conception of history.' It is particularly valuable and important to the student of Marxist thought because Marx never again set down a comprehensive statement of hist theory of history at such length and in such detail" (146).

It seems this language was inserted way back at the dawn of this article, by a user who has since been banned.

In my opinion the introduction should be completely rewritten, either to avoid the plagiarized words and ideas entirely, or to quote and cite Tucker accordingly.
Sindinero (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done I took a stab at it. Themillofkeytone (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Two versions?

Does the outline correspond to the manuscripts or to the Soviet edition? --Error (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Riazanov

It appears that Riazanov was dismissed from the Marx-Engels Institute in February 1931, yet the article states that the book was published under his direction. Furthermore, by 1932 the Marx-Engels and Lenin Institute merged, so it became the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute. It was Vladimir Adoratsky, however, the director of the MELI at the time. Should be corrected in that sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.47.64.138 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)