Talk:On the Jewish Question

Article seems pretty fair now

Before I edited it, the article was a whitewash of Karl Marx. My edits, however failed to take the neutral point of view, treating Marxism as uncontroversially and unambiguously evil. Subsequent edits by other people of what I wrote have restored the neutral point of view, without whitewashing Marx or communism.

So thanks for the edits, they seem fair to me now. James A. Donald 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us call a spade a spade

When discussing Marx's essay, this article frequently substitutes for Marx's brutal and menacing words, some bland interpretation of his words.

Marx's essay foreshadows numerous dreadful communist crimes. Marx was not some moderate social democrat objecting to the display of a nativity scene in a public square, and to reinterpret his essay as that sort of stuff is falsification, and to ignore the connections between his essay and the enormous crimes committed by communist regimes gives a misleading context to his words.

If it is relevant to Marx's essay that recently existent communism was not in fact a Jewish conspiracy, why is it irrelevant that recently existent communism was anti semitic? This article defends communism against the charge of being a Jewish conspiracy, but my mention of the communist purges of Jews from the party was deleted. If the one is relevant, why not the other?

James A. Donald 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by James A. Donald

I am disturbed by the recent edits made by James A. Donald. Specifically, this user's recent edits obviously reflect his own stance toward Marx's text and not any kind of concensus; witness the following: "most scholars today seem to be in denial about Marx's plain words." I would take very significant issue with including this and other of James A. Donald's revisions in an encyclopedia article for the following reasons:

1. Insofar as this user's contributions purport to disagree with academic interpretations of Marx's text, it seems to constitute original research.
2. Following from the above, this user's contributions seem to further a very distinct point of view.
3. This user's contributions also make the somewhat sophomoric equation of disdain for Judaism, a religious belief, with Antisemitism directed at ethnic Jews. Although the two are indeed related, they are by no means identical. Moreover, James A. Donald's claim that Marx's critiques of Judaism make him a "self-hating Jew" reduces ethnic identity to religious identity. Are Jewish atheists thus "self-hating" as well? This is very reductive and problematic, as I see it.

I have refrained from reverting this article yet because I hope to arrive at some sort of consensus about this issue. However, it seems to me that if the overwhelming majority of scholars present a case different from that found in James A. Donald's revisions, then these revisions are either A) wrong, and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or B) the result of original research, and thus again inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Job L 08:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make a compromise version. All comments are welcome. Academic Challenger 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Academic Challenger. (Great username, by the way.) Your revisions address my concerns about particular interpretations of Marx's text without completely ignoring the possibility of anti-Semitism. The current revision presents anti-Semitism as a very real possibility for interpretation rather than as a fact about the text. Job L 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"the actual, worldly Jew"

I deleted the quote "Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew", because the first quote has already referred to "the worldly religion of the Jew". I inserted other quotes and explanations that I find important in order to clarify the text further. --85.187.44.131 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. I'm unsure that the added text accounted for this important distinction clearly enough. El_C 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

'acculturation'

I believe the use of 'acculturation' in this article is inappropriate. Acculturation implies an active transmission of a dominant ethos to those of an immigrant or otherwise marginal ethos, thus overwriting the indigenous way of life with the normative dominant way. The fact that Jews were barred from certain types of employment thus directing them to a particular vocational norm is not acculturation, perhaps 'marginalization' or 'socio-economic coercion' would be more accurate. -FreddieResearch 5/2/06

Personally, I don't know, but the wiki article on acculturation says: "Acculturation is the obtainment of culture by an individual or a group of people. The term originally applied only to the process concerning a foreign culture ... However, the term now has come to mean, in addition, the child-acquisition acculturation of native culture since infancy in the household."

--85.187.44.131 21:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Specific criticism"

OK, this is a repetition of the info that is already present, with a lot of dubious moments. I say delete the whole thing except for Mir Haven's "anti-Semitic" references to Muravchik etc. If not - a "disputed neutrality" tag and "citation needed" tags all over the section. --85.187.44.131 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Question is whether the section reiterates that information within the context of specific critics or simply repeats what was said elsewhere. El_C 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at it. First, it mentions the critics who believe the essay is anti-Semitic. Then, it pretends to explain what the work really, objectively contains. Finally, it refers to two scholars, without specifying who said what - I know for a fact that the only connection with Draper is the word "pun", and I very much doubt that the remaining exposition is taken from McLellan 100%. Until somebody gives me the exact quote, I am inclined to believe that it is exactly the same as the old part of the article - namely the essay retold by Wikipedians themselves. It could only stay if presented as ONE of many interpretations, but then you have to say whose interpretation it is, and I don't think that can be done at the moment. Now the problem with that retelling is that it distorts the facts - among other things, by claiming that Marx isn't referring to real Jews and to Judaism at all, which you, of course, know isn't true, as your last edit shows. That's very bad, and it does a disservice both to Marx (as people are going to think that somebody lied to "protect" him; there's already been one case of that) and to Wikipedia's reputation. So what I'll do is: Stage 1: put some tags at the problematic places; Stage 2: if you agree, move it to the talk page until somebody provides a source. --85.187.44.131 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I notice Mgekelly has authored that setion three days ago, so I'll drop him/her a line. El_C 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm really sorry I didn't flag what I was doing with this edit. Basically, I was copyediting the Karl Marx page and I simply moved this information from there to here, because I felt that this is where it belonged. However, it was controversial there and the subject of a debate. So what I basically did is move that debate over to this article, which I realise I should at least have left a note here about it. 85.187.44.131, who was really the one who was most interested in it from what I've read of the discussion, consented to this move and his clearly moved over here, so it seems it's working out OK, n'est-ce pas? Mgekelly - Talk 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm really sorry El C thought that you were responsible for writing that text. :) --85.187.44.131 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all; I confess to being confused. :) I wrote the section above it; 172 authored the one above that. El_C 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Specific criticism" moved to talk page

Specific criticism of On the Jewish Question

{{NPOV}} {{verify}} Some scholars have presented an alternative reading of Marx, primarily based on his essay On the Jewish Question. Economist Tyler Cowen, historian Marvin Perry, and political scientist Joshua Muravchik have suggested that what they see as an intense hatred for the "Jewish Class" was part of Marx's belief that if he could convince his contemporaries and the public to hate Jewish capitalists, the public would eventually come to dislike non-Jewish capitalists as well.

Most scholars reject this claim for two reasons: first, it is based on two short essays written in the 1840s, and ignores the bulk of Marx's analysis of capitalism written in the following years. Second, it distorts the argument of On the Jewish Question, in which Marx deconstructs liberal notions of emancipation. During the Enlightenment, philosophers and political theorists argued that religious authority had been oppressing human beings, and that religion must be separated from the functions of the state for people to be truly free. Following the French Revolution, many people were thus calling for the emancipation of the Jews.

At the same time, many argued that Christianity is a more enlightened and advanced religion than Judaism. For example, Marx's former mentor, Bruno Bauer, allegedly argued that Christians need to be emancipated only once (from Christianity), and Jews need to be emancipated twice — first from Judaism (presumably, by converting to Christianity), then from religion altogether.

Marx rejects Bauer's argument as a form of Christian ethnocentrism, if not anti-Semitic. Marx proceeds to turn Bauer's language, and the rhetoric of anti-Semites, upside down to make a more progressive argument. First, he points out that Bruno Bauer's argument is too parochial because it considers Christianity to be more evolved than Judaism , and because it narrowly defines the problem that requires emancipation to be religion. Marx instead argues that the issue is not religion, but capitalism. Pointing out that anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews are fundamentally anti-capitalist , Marx provides a theory of anti-Semitism by suggesting that anti-Semites scapegoat Jews for capitalism because too many non-Jews benefit from, or are invested in capitalism, to attack capitalism directly .

Marx also uses this rhetoric ironically to develop his critique of bourgeois notions of emancipation. Marx points out that the bourgeois notion of freedom is predicated on choice (in politics, through elections; in the economy, through the market), but that this form of freedom is anti-social and alienating. Although Bauer and other liberals believe that emancipation means freedom to choose, Marx argues that this is at best a very narrow notion of freedom . Thus, what Bauer believes would be the emancipation of the Jews is for Marx actually alienation, not emancipation . After explaining that he is not referring to real Jews or to the Jewish religion , Marx appropriates this anti-Semitic rhetoric against itself (in a way that parallels his Hegelian argument that capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction) by using "Judaism" ironically as a metaphor for capitalism. In this sense, Marx states, all Europeans are "Jewish". This is a pun on two levels. First, if the Jews must be emancipated, Marx is saying that all Europeans must be emancipated. Second, if by "Judaism" one really means "capitalism," then far from Jews needing to be emancipated from Christianity (as Bauer called for), Christians need to be emancipated from Judaism (meaning, bourgeois society). See: works by historian Hal Draper and David McLellan.

Removed paragraph

"Marx stresses, then, that he is speaking of "the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew." Meaning, not the [Sabbath] Jews who may devote their lives to studying the Kabalah and the Talmud, but those [worldly] Jews who in their daily economic activities are engaged in banking, trade, and finance."

My problem with this paragraph is that I don't think the interpretation of the quote is correct. The idea is not to distinguish between two kinds of Jews, but between two sides of Jewish life - the religious one and the material/economic one. That's why Marx says that he is talking about the actual Jew. For him, the "worldly", material side of life is the "actual", real one. --85.187.44.131 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"World Without Jews"

Well, I am somewhat missing a mention of one of Marx's works on Jewish question which is his "World Without Jews". Since I am not much skilled at Marxism, would like to go deeper into it but see this item missing even in the main entry of Karl Marx, then I must ask myself: isn't omitting works having a 'story to tell' a kind of POV? David

Strictly speaking, I think you're right. However, that's also a very powerful accusation that you're making. I am extremely dubious that the omission of this text results from some sort of POV or other agenda on the part of Wikipedians interested in Marx. Rather, it seems much more likely to me that the reason it's not mentioned is that "World without Jews" seems to be a fairly seldom read text. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on Marxism, but I'm interested enough and well versed enough in Marx to be at least loosely familiar with some of the major texts, e.g., Capital, The Communist Manifesto, and the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, to name a few. The text in question, however, of which I've never heard before, can hardly be said to be as well known as these examples.

If you want to "go deeper into [this]," I suggest you find and read the text under question and, if you feel the text warrants it, write the Wikipedia article on it or request that someone else do so—rather than implying some sort of anti-Semitic perspective on the part of Wikipedians. Job L 13:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Job: Definitely I did not mean to offend anyone, just tried to provoke a bit. I also agree that the WWJ is far from representative. But as to "implying some sort of anti-Semitic perspective on the part of Wikipedians" - I think you missed my point. My only "implication" is that all contributions should be as complete as possible as Wikipedia is projected to be the most accurate and complete source. Just imagine being an apologist of Karl Marx facing opposition (say, on the part of his Jewish question). Wouldn't you be stunned by not knowing what your partner knows, i.e. that Marx also authored a work which is much closer to anti-Semitism than his well known 'Zur Judenfrage' ? And still, why do so many Marxists omit this clearly less 'representative' work of Marx? David

Perhaps it was a bit hasty of me to assume that you were implying some sort of anti-Semitism. However, most Wikipedians (at least it seems this way to me) use the term POV to describe precisely those edits that have a specific agenda or perspective that they wish to further. That's why I interpreted the charges of POV the way I did, even though you didn't necessarily mean quite what I inferred. Sorry to misread you, but I also think that ignorance does not constitute an agenda, especially in the context of a user-edited encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

No hard feelings, I hope. Job L 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely no hard feelings. I have just realized that the work discussed is missing even in the Czech National Library in Prague which I can hardly suspect of POV:) Anyway, to find it and write an article is now likely to be a hard task. I will continue my search over time and hope to give a short mention some time. Thanks and best regards. David

I changed the paragraph that previously read, "A translation of Zur Judenfrage was published in 1959 in a book "A World Without Jews". The editor D. Runes intended to show Marx's alleged anti-Semitism. This claim has been rejected with reference to a distorted translation and a misleading title ." This was incorrect; what was rejected was the title itself - which *was* distorted and misleading - but that has no bearing on whether the claim of Marx's antisemitism in the essay gets rejected or not. In any case, that debate is still ongoing and it's not possible to say, flatly, that it's been rejected. The paragraph should now accurately reflect the point being made about the title. - Ahava Emmett

Thanks, I agree that the point of Draper's note 1 is not Marx alleged antisemitism. So the previous wikipedia article was not accurate. In my new version, I've tried to give Draper's point more accurate. I think the links to the "worldsocialism" pages show that there were more articles of Marx included in the "World Without Jews" book, and that Runes indeed wanted to show Marx alleged antisemitism. However, I've taken out the part "Marx as antisemitic, which has been a frequent critique of his attitude toward Jews in the essay." again, since I'm not convinced that this really is a frequent critique from serious sources. Schwalker 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What's your criteria for "serious" sources? No sarcasm meant, I just don't want to waste my time combing sources until I know what you're looking for. I've been around a lot of scholars of antisemitism and there is most definitely dedicated scholarship about this question and frequent discussion of it. So tell me what would convince you of that and I'll provide it. Ahava Emmett 19:41, 13 March 2007 [EST]

By no means I'm in a position to decide how this article should look like. Nor would I have the education and ability to decide this on my own. But you asked what would convince me that there is a real debate. For example, I consider academic scholars discussing in peer reviewed journals as "serious sources". Also, any other public discussion should be of interest for wikipedia. Runes seems to be a renowned scholar, but his interpretation of the essay seemingly has not found acceptance by the academic mainstream as far as I know. I believe it is crucial to understand that Marx's rethorical questions (" What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.") are directed to, and answered from the Bauer essays. It seems this kind of Marx's ironic arguing escapes some interpretations. On the other hand, Robert Fine in his article on the Engage-site says: "There is no reason to think, as most commentators claim (including Julius Carlebach in his wonderfully erudite book Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism), that Marx for a moment accepted the ‘real Jew’ of Bauer’s anti-Semitic imagination to be empirically well grounded or an authentic image of Jews and Judaism." So if most (or some) commentators (for example Carlebach) really should have claimed that Marx did accept this stereotype, then this wikipedia article could document this claim with sources. With a search engine, it is easy to find web-sites of Holocaust revisionists, who misinterpret Marx and try to use him as a witness for their cause. These sites are examples of what I don't consider as serious sources.Schwalker 11:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Schwalker 09:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic publications

There is currently an edit war about whether to include the category Antisemitic publications. I believe it should not be included because of the disagreement about how to interpret this work. There should be a discussion about this. Academic Challenger 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should not be put into this Category. An important number of scholars does not consider the essay to be antisemitic. This is supported by the source from Encyclopedia of Jewish History, for example. One should keep in mind that to put a publication into the category implies to charge the author or the publisher with being an antisemite.--Schwalker 18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A Misinterpretation

"Marx uses Bauer's essay as an occasion for his own analysis of liberal rights, rather than an attack on Jews, though he does harshly attack the Jews." On the Jewish Question is most deninately a response to Bauer's essay, but to even consider it in terms of an attack on the Jews, I feel, is to completely misinterpret the purpose of the text.
Instead, Marx uses the Jewish question to reveal that there is something fundamentally flawed in Bauer's notion of political emancipation. Marx agrees with Bauer (although only to a limited extent) that political emancipation requires its religious counterpart, but Bauer's position is reversed when Marx shows that it is the secular state that is the most religious of all. This counter-intuitive idea comprises the theme of the text, with the main issues being political alienation, religious idealism and the relationship between these and the secular state. Ultimately, the purpose of the text is to introduce a distinction between political and human emancipation.
This user is very concerned that this article has taken a particular reading of Marx's text (and it must be emphasised that this text is part of a philosophical discourse) and has created what reads to me as a biased and mistated summary. No doubt the article remains relevant to the themes of anti-semitism, etc., but would be better suited as a sub-section within a proper discussion of Marx's text.

DS Close 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation

The sentence "The essay has been seen by some writers as prefiguring the anti Semitism of various communist regimes" is marked as "citation needed." I have access to an ad that was published in The Nation for an edition of this essay which makes this claim. Yes or no on using the ad for a citation.Rlh 1984 01:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, if ad means advertisement then it is certainly not suitable to use it for a citation. Schwalker 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur—insofar as we are all engaged here in a non-profit effort, an advertisement would, in the vast majority of cases, be an inappropriate source. Rather than using an advertisement as support for this claim, one ought to cite "some writers"—that is, the specific scholars—who make this claim. Job L 08:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so (that's why I asked - no need to get your pants in a bunch). If this doesn't satisfy you, the claim is also made in The Marx-Engels Reader Second Edition edited by Roberts C. Tucker.Rlh 1984 01:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tucker reader would be a fine source to cite here. I would point out, though, that there's a difference between supporting one's views with rational argumentation—views that Rlh 1984 solicited—and "get[ting one's] pants in a bunch." Job L 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Defending Anti-Jewish Bigotry?

Why do the authors of this article go to such lengths to defend the plainly anti-Jewish sentiments of Marx?? Is it because he's an important historical figure with Jewish ancestory? So what? If some third-rate christian or muslim (non-Jewish) social scientist had made these exact same statements, he would have been mercilessly branded a rabid anti-semite!! Please re-evaluate the revisionist desires of the authors and make this article more fair and reasonable. Marx made numerous statements that were disparaging and disrespectful towards Jews. That's all there is to say. No "hypothetical" defense of his views not contained in his writing is warranted no matter how much you may "wish" he wasn't a bigot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.196.13 (Talk) (talk • contribs).

Hallo, please refrain from insinuations (e.g. "revisionist desires") and conjectures (e.g. "defending bigotry") about the authors of this article. You are welcome to make constructive suggestions and provide sourced material, see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. Please note that this article is about the essay On the Jewish Question, not about "numerous statements" by Marx. --Schwalker 11:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the mainstream academic interpretation of "On the Jewish Question" does not see it as primarily an anti-Semitic text; we quote a number of these interpretations in the article. If you can find reliable sources putting forward the view that the essay is anti-Semitic, by all means add them to the article. VoluntarySlave 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Marx's language

Recently, a paragraph, followed by five quotes from OtJQ, had been added to the article.

This paragraph subsequently had been replaced by this two sentences, again followed by the five quotes:

Marx's writings employed a number of traditional antisemitic stereotypes and scapegoating tactics that have been used to demonize and denigrate the Jewish culture, and ridicule the piety of the Jewish faith. Examples in the "On the Jewish Question" include:

In my opinion, the claim that Marx's writings employed traditional antisemitic language should be supported by a reliable source. Otherwise the article would carry out original research. The second sentence seems to claim that the quotes from OtJQ are in fact examples for traditional antisemitism. Again, this claim would need the support of a reliable source.

Therefore, I have deleted the fist sentence, and replaced the second sentence by

Quotes from On the Jewish Question, which can be interpreted as antisemitic when taken out of their contexts include:

I have also included two quotes from Draper 1977 about Marx's use of language.--Schwalker 11:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Schwalker, I'm sorry, but this is the only post I'm going to make here, because I can't afford to discuss and/or edit war about this (or anything else on Wikipedia) day after day. The only reason why I made my edits was because I had invested much effort in editing and discussing it about a year ago and hated to see the way it had become worse in many ways. I spent a lot of time fixing it now, too, but struggling with another editor over this fixing, on top of it all, is just more than I can handle. Here is the explanation for the only (partial) revert that I am going to make, in the form of responses to your edit summaries:

"it is frequently argued..", "..quotes cited as..", "sometimes cited": who? where?;

We all know very well who and where accuses Marx pf anti-Semitism, citing "On the Jewish Question". Marx-bashers (of Jewish or non-Jewish background) do it. Some of the people cited in the Interpretations section (Greenblatt, for example) do it. The article said that even before my edits. And it's ridiculous not to mention allegations of anti-Semitism in the lead when 80% of the article is devoted in one or another to the discussion of these allegations, and when it is obviously the main reason why most people are interested in the essay in the first place. As for the "quotes sometimes cited", if you don't admit that they are cited as such, then they should be deleted altogether ("can be interpreted as anti-Semitic" suggests conjecturing on our part, i.e. possible OR). Your version, featuring the addition that "they can be interpreted as anti-Semitic if taken out of context" bit is obviously POV, because it presupposes that this interpretation is wrong, which is clearly a debated issue.

"Marx&Judaism is intended as discussion of part II"

The section entitled "Marx and Judaism" was not anything like a coherent summary of the content of Part II, (there was no such summary at all), it was a mixed discussion of: (1) isolated quotes, (2) interpretations; and (3) Marx' attitude towards Jews in general (unrelated to the essay). (1) Isolated quotes are clearly very bad, and potentially worse than nothing at all. (2) Stuff about Marx' attitude towards Jews in general (unrelated to the essay), including his own Jewish background, should be separated from the summary - assuming that they belong here altogether, which is doubtful as well, since this article is about this particular essay. (3) Interpretations of the essay (Avineri, McLellan, Hal Draper etc.) should obviously go to the section entitled "Interpretations", not stay in "Karl Marx and Judaism" as in the version you reverted to. Otherwise, we get irritating repetitions and omissions. This is an elementary matter of decent organization of the text (a major problem on Wikipedia, where few editors ever care to read an article from the beginning to the end).

"partially rv paragraph added to current summary:redundances, "disappearance of religion"not exactly in essay, "within hitherto existing world order" no genuine quote)"

The quote is quite genuine and comes from the same online translation as everything else. The "disappearance of religion" is not a quote, but a retelling of an obvious part of the message, and in fact the need for religion to eventually be relinquised by everyone is one of the few things that Bauer and Marx clearly agree in. Bauer asserts that emancipation would require that everybody, including the Jews, "emancipate" themselves from their religion (quote: "give up religion altogether"), Marx' only objection is basically that this is only true for complete human emancipation, but not for mere political emancipation ("Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation"). Without that bit, as in the version you're reverting to, things remain entirely unclear, and in particular the nature and relevance of the difference that Marx makes between political and human emancipation remains a mystery. In this way, it appears almost as if Marx thinks a US-type of secular state is perfection itself, and a case of human emnacipation (i.e. precisely the opposite of what he is saying).

"hotly debated":by who?

By all the interpreters in the "Interpretations" section. Anyway, I can live without it. Changed it to "discussed most often" os something like that. What I mean is, of couse, that all the "anti-Semitic" allegations are based on it.

"complex and somewhat" (metaphorical argument) - unclear interpretation

Yes, the wording is unclear, because the matter is unclear. The argument includes metaphors, but that doesn't mean it consists only of metaphors - the terms "Jew", "Judaism" etc. are used as metaphors, but also literally.

notion "capitalism" is not used by Marx yet

I think it's clear that that's what is meant, but I think you're right that the word should be avoided here.

I also disagree with this rearrangement, because info about Marx' other related publications is more suitable either before or after all analyses, but certainly not in-between them (between the "Interpretaions" section and the "Marx and Judaism" section).

Best wishes, --91.148.159.4 00:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ninetyone hundredfortyeight hundredfiftynine four, thanks for your contributions and comments. I will try to address some of those parts of your comments which are relevant for the article. It won't be convenient or possible to address everything in one single message.--Schwalker 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Did Marx strive for the disappearance of religion?

Following paragraph had been added by an editor to the end of the summary of part I in the "Political and human emancipation" section:

In Marx' view, Bauer fails to distinguish between political emancipation and human emancipation: as pointed out above, political emancipation in a modern state does not require the Jews (or, for that matter, the Christians) to renounce religion; only complete human emancipation would involve the disappearance of religion, but that is not yet possible, not "within the hitherto existing world order".

I had partially reverted this edit by shifting the "Bauer fails to distinguish between political emancipation and human emancipation" part into an earlier paragraph, and deleting the other material. My comment was:

(partially rv paragraph added to current summary:redundances, "disappearance of religion"not exactly in essay, "within hitherto existing world order" no genuine quote)

Subsequently, my edit had been reverted again by the other editor, who in Talk:On_the_Jewish_Question#My_edits gave the following reasons:

The quote is quite genuine and comes from the same online translation as everything else. The "disappearance of religion" is not a quote, but a retelling of an obvious part of the message, and in fact the need for religion to eventually be relinquised by everyone is one of the few things that Bauer and Marx clearly agree in. Bauer asserts that emancipation would require that everybody, including the Jews, "emancipate" themselves from their religion (quote: "give up religion altogether"), Marx' only objection is basically that this is only true for complete human emancipation, but not for mere political emancipation ("Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation"). Without that bit, as in the version you're reverting to, things remain entirely unclear, and in particular the nature and relevance of the difference that Marx makes between political and human emancipation remains a mystery. In this way, it appears almost as if Marx thinks a US-type of secular state is perfection itself, and a case of human emnacipation (i.e. precisely the opposite of what he is saying).

My comments:

• I think the need for a phrase like as pointed out above,... indicates an unfinished presentation. An encyclopedia should avoid repetitions in the text.
• Yes, "within the hitherto existing world order" is indeed a quote from the essay. I had not recognized this when I made the claim that it was not genuine. Nevertheless, the context of the phrase is:

Political emancipation is, of course, a big step forward. True, it is not the final form of human emancipation in general, but it is the final form of human emancipation within the hitherto existing world order.

So Marx says that within the hitherto existing world order, emancipation can't go beyond political emancipation. Nowhere in this quote does he say that the disappearance of religion would be involved in the final form of human emancipation.

• The quote "Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation." can be read in two different ways:

a) Because you can be emancipated politically without at the same time having to renounce Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation. That means, to renounce Judaism completely and incontrovertibly is a necessary precondition for human emancipation.

b) Because you can be emancipated politically without being capable of, or being allowed to renounce Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation. In other words, a just politically but not humanly emancipated society won't allow its Jewish members a complete and incontrovertible renouncement of Judaism, whether they aspire it or not.

The other editor seems to prefer interpretation a). By the way, this is the point of view of Larry Ray's article, too. But also b) is a possible interpretation. In my opinion, b) is fitting better within Marx's remaining argumentation.

• According to Marx, in an emancipated society, religious consciousness would dissipate:

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society.

But physically speaking, dissipation does not mean disappearance.

• Marx cites Beaumont:

Nevertheless, “in the United States people do not believe that a man without religion could be an honest man.” (op. cit., p. 224)

So for Marx, in an emancipatied society a man can be regarded as honest without having a religion. But this does not mean a requirement for everyone to relinquish their religion.

• Marx objection is that Bauer does not take into consideration social reality. For Marx, human emancipation is not reached yet in western secular states, since man is reduced "on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, and, on the other hand, to a citizen, a juridical person". For him, religion is just a secondary, ideological effect of this reduction. The old version fo the article did point out Marx's main concern: that individuals can still be bound to material constraints on freedom by economic inequality.

--Schwalker 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither the Library of Congress nor WorldCat shows any such title

That's not the title of the published book form of Marx's work on the Jewish Question. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

World Without Jews

The correct title, as it was first published in the English language is World Without Jews [1] & [2] --Ludvikus (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the LOC on it:

Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.

Uniform Title: Zur Judenfrage. English

Main Title: A world without Jews. Translated from the original German, with an introd. by Dagobert D. Runes.

Published/Created: New York, Philosophical Library [1959]

Description: xii, 51 p. 20 cm.

Notes: "The first unexpurgated English language publication of papers ... originally published [in Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher, 1844, under title Zur Judenfrage] as a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer ... on ’the Jewish question.’"

--Ludvikus (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very doubtfull that A World without Jews was the first published translation in English language. However, the essay is known under On the Jewish Question today. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the libraries' online catalogs - and rekieve your doubt. --!!

Requested move

This has been listed on WP:RM as a move from A World Without Jews to On the Jewish Question.

ISTM that the first question is: What is the article about? Specifically, if it's to be about the English translation of 1959, then in terms of WP:NC the existing name A World Without Jews is probably the one. On the other hand, if it's about the original German article of 1843, the question is more open; I'd guess that Zur Judenfrage is the most likely contender. Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is firstly about the original article published in 1844, the Runes edition is only a footnote. If you look at Category:Books by Karl Marx and Category:Books by Friedrich Engels, you'll see that (except Das Kapital) all titels are in their English translation. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• (1) But that kind of analysis constitutes WP:Original research.
• (2) If you consult the authorities - as I have done - namely, the Library of Congress & British Library Online Catalog(s) [the BL, incidently has, adopted the Subject Classification of the LC] you will, very suprisingly, that there is no such "book" as On the Jewish Question!
• (3) The latter is the name of the e-Text by the scholarly Marxist institute(s). I do not think, to the best of my recollection, that either library lists this electronic resource in its catalogs.
• (4) Finally, what the article is about - or should be about - is the (One or Single) text which is in existence in three physical forms: (i) the first edition or first imprint of 1844, (ii) the 1959 first edition in book form, and (iii) the online edition of the scholarly institute, the Marx Lenin Institute, which is charged I think which archives of all these papers, and published the collected works.

--Ludvikus (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very few English-language publications use the A World Without Jews title. You should have waited for the move request to conclude rather than jumping the gun. Also, the addition in the body (first section) is unnecessary and seems to be there purely for the name change. Please take the time to review our undue weight policy clause. El_C 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please discuss things before you Revert my editing. Lets not have an Edit War. Please. I am open to your position if you discuss things! --Ludvikus (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• There are three other editors here. And I wish to hear what they say. Please do not Revert my Edits. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The other (two) present WP editors are User:Schwalker and User:Andrewa. I would like to discuss things with them also, please. I want to know their points of view as well. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The fact is that you are the one who is introducing substantial changes. Not to mention that rather than wait a few days for an admin to close the move request, you do it yourself a few hours after proposing it, despite objections. It doesn't look good, sorry. El_C 14:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think you are mistaken. I have only edited the first Paragraph. It is you who simply REVERTED that work, causing me to deal with your Reversion. Regarding "changes" I understand that WP policy says Be Bold in your Editing. And I have not Reverted - you have. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• As to Substance, consider the First English Language Edition (1959) and what the Library Card says: "The first unexpurgated English language publication of papers ... originally published [in Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher, 1844, under title Zur Judenfrage] as a review of the writings of Dr. Bruno Bauer ... on 'the Jewish question.'"'

'

That's said by librarians, not me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "said by librarians." It's just a quote from the book. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus goes so far as saying "that this text is only known in the United States and the United Kindgum by that [title]."[3] It just seems so far fetched that it's the dominant, not to mention the only title, for this famous work. Thx. El_C 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do we really need the bold text? It just comes across as too excited and aggrendizing. The article is known in the English-speaking world primarily by the conventional title; I'll refactor: A simple google test yields ~2500 entries for A World Without Jews and ~50,000 entries for On the Jewish Question (with ~10,000 Wikipedia-related results omitted). Likewise: google scholar produces ~less than 100 entries for the former versus nearly 3,500 entries for the latter. [not to mention that a great deal of the AWJ mention is not even about the subject, but the phrase, unrelated to it] El_C 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bogus rendering of the actual title, and should not be in there. It has no historical credibility. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that google has more than 20 times the mention of the "A World Without Jews" phrase and that scholar google has more than 35 times the mention is, I submit, highly revealing as per usage. El_C 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Removed Boldface above. Sorry for that. And I agree that most likely that's the book's self discription. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• But what's wrong with this twice Reverted (not by me) 3-sentence opening?: --Ludvikus (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

---

For other uses, see Talk:On the Jewish Question (disambiguation).

Or see Jewish question (disambiguation).

A World Without Jews[4], [5] a.k.a. On the Jewish Question (German: Zur Judenfrage), is a 1959, 51 page book, published as a hardback, of a newspaper article(s) by Karl Marx originally written or published in autumn 1843.

It is disputed whether or not it is anti-Semitic (see below).

Scholars of Marxism maintain that it is one of Marx's earliest attempts to deal with categories that would later be called the materialist conception of history.

• --Ludvikus (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

---

You put the minor title before the dominant one (we're unsure if it the alternate should even be mentioned in the lead — also un-ref'd, untitled, plain url sources are problematic for the article, highly problematic for the lead paragraph, and immensely so for the lead sentence). The Marxian scholars is an unnecessary qualification — other, non-Marxian scholars also maintain this. The bite-sized paragraph that attributes antisemitism to Marx and this work beyond how it's treated in the mainstream and academia. None of the changes should be kept at this time. El_C 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. But that can all be ajusted, compromised, etc. And I do not think I'm responsible for all that. Also, I found a practical solution. I just now started a {{stub}} on Dagobert D. Runes. I was shocked to find that WP had no article on him. So can you guys, or gals as well, help me on that/him? I believe if we write about him we may find a compromise. Since it is he who published the text of our concern under the title AWWJ - and you people only want OTJQ. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in representing scholarly consensus, and since google scholar has +35 times the mention of the original, conventional title, it seems sensible we should go with that. Maybe somewhere in the article talk about the history and origin of the minority, alternate title, but I don't think we need to do it in the lead. Certainly no superseding the predominant one (I confess that after all we discussed already, you still asked what was wrong with it — I'm sorry, it does look a bit suspect). El_C 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because the book description says first "unexpurgated" does not mean the "first time" — you're, again, conflating the two. El_C 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Zur Judenfrage. I think I'm not intentionally responsible for your suspicions. Having said that, I find the German to be uniform title of this work, by the Library of Congress. The difference between your scholarship and mine is this: I go to the greatest libraries in the world - even the British Museum where Karl Marx"Karl so much of his time. But what do you do? You do WP:Original research using Google to do your own statistical surveys. And you ignore the fact that Google reproduces THIS (sorry for this shouting, but its just not being heard) article, which you wrote I believe. So what really going onwith your research? You are counting how many times what you said is repeated oncyberspace.--Ludvikus (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And I challenge you to find just one other edition of this 1959 English language book. I'm goping now to the British Museum to see if I can do that. See you later (also, I need to eat something). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? Your original synthesis with this book description inspires little confidence. The fact that both google and google scholar favour the conventional title by factors of tens speaks for itself, as per usage. There's nothing original about that, I didn't make it up. Not to mention that your version was poorly written, with idiosyncratic emphases, going on about that translation (I guess to prove this bogus alternate-title-as-predominant theory), with stunted prose, with an inexplicable first section that is basically a verbatim cataclogue copy of that translation (again, awkwardly, to prove its validity?). Sorry for being so blunt, but it does not speak of quality. Maybe review some featured content, I don't know... El_C 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Zur Judenfrage

I just stopped of at the Library of Congress. They have Seven (7) titles for this uniform title. See how many ones are in English:

• [ 1 ] Zur Judenfrage nach dem Krieg; Zionismus oder Judentum in der Völkergemeinschaft? Ryba, R. [from old catalog] Zur Judenfrage nach dem Krieg; Zionismus oder Judentum in der Völkergemeinschaft?

CALL NUMBER: DS141 .R9

• [ 2 ] Zur judenfrage. Bresslau, Harry, 1848- [from old catalog] Zur judenfrage. 1880

CALL NUMBER: DS135.G33 T73

• [ 3 ] Zur Judenfrage, zwei Sendschreiben. Gauvain, Hermann von. [from old catalog] Zur Judenfrage, zwei Sendschreiben. 1881

CALL NUMBER: 4DS 190

• [ 4 ] Zur judenfrage nach den akten prozesses Rohling-Bloch. Kopp, Josef. Zur judenfrage nach den akten prozesses Rohling-Bloch. Von dr. Josef Kopp. 1886

CALL NUMBER: DS145.R7 K6 1886

• [ 5 ] Zur "Judenfrage", zeitgenössische Original-Aussprüche. Klopfer, Carl Ed. [from old catalog] Zur "Judenfrage", zeitgenössische Original-Aussprüche. Mit einer Vorbemerkung von Ernst Hallier. 1891

CALL NUMBER: 4DS 318

• [ 6 ] Zur Judenfrage. English. Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. World without Jews.Translated from the original German, with an introd. by Dagobert D. Runes. 1959

• [ 7 ] Zur Judenfrage. Italian. 1982. Parinetto, Luciano. Marx e Shylock : Kant, Hegel, Marx e il mondo ebraico : con una nuova traduzione di Marx, La questione ebraica / Luciano Parinetto, Livio Sichirollo. 1982

---

Back from the British Museum, a.k.a. the British Library. It has Fifty Seven (57) entries for this title. I'm very hungry now, and will get something to eat. So can you see if you find any English translation(s) there? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[6]

---

That doesn't respond to anything I said with respect to usage in the English-speaking world. El_C 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring my point. Your usage research constitutes WP:Original research - don't you realize that? Is this not an article about a book? But in 1843 there was no book, just a manuscript which I believe is currently at the Marx-Lenin Institute in Mascow (no?). And in 1844 it was a newspaper article. Finally, in 1959, in the USA, it was printed as a small hardback book. It apparently has not been imprinted in a version which the Library of Congress found desireable to own and catalog. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is the library of congress an authority on Marx? What I have in print, at home alone: "On the Jewish Question", translated from German by Loyd D. Easton and Kurt H. Guddat (1967) [taken from: Simon, Lawrence H. Karl Marx: Selected Writing, 1994] and I also have an "On the Jewish Question", translated by T.B. Bottomore (1963) [from Karl Marx: Early Writings, 1963 (p. 1)] I also have the same article/translation appearing in the Robert C. Tucker's (ed.) The Marx-Engels Reader (p.24), 1972. Again, that's just what I have at home, in print. As you look at various compilations and translations of this work, you will find that title vastly predominates, and this is exactly why google scholar mentions this title over 35 times more. El_C 17:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is all totally irrelevant. If the article is primarily about the original article (in German), then the German title should probably be used, as that's what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (see WP:NC). If the article is primarily about an English edition, then of course one of the English titles is a more likely candidate, and your research will help determine which of these is best. But we need to make the underlying decision first: What is the article about? And this still seems unanswered. Andrewa (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The title needs to reflect usage in the English-speaking world, especially in the scholarship. There has been various English translations, most use the conventional title. You two seem determined to use the single translated title which barely sees any usage. El_C 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the title needs to reflect usage in the English-speaking world but not especially in the scholarship. The last comment is a bit strange if I'm one of the two, since I was the one who proposed using the German title. Using the translated title to me reeks of Henry Higgins observation: And then rather than do either you'll do something else that neither likes at all. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, I just don't think many English-speaking people would pick up on the German title, I know I most likely wouldn't. El_C 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, what is clear: we have various English translations of "The Jewish Question" title, widely used by modern scholars in the West (see above; I haven't even touched the East: also translated the same). On the other side, we have a single "A World Without Jews" translated title, scarcely used in the scholarship (online: for eg., google scholar: less than 100 mentions vs. 3,500; in print: in various compilations and so on). El_C 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What's it about? Why are you not Bold as WP wishes. It's obviously about what Marx wrote in 1843. It was reissued under varius titles. That is absolutely important. And in fact, it can only be about two other things, the varius Marxist interpretations, and the anti-Semitic ones. Have I ommitted any? So I appreciate very much the references give by our editor above. I will look into that. But, it is not for us to speculate on the so-called Jewish question in general. We do also have now a disambiguation page, do not forget: Jewish question (disambiguation). So you can choose the other meanings you wish to develop. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably I'm not as bold as you wish because I like to conform to Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and also a personal philosophy. Please discuss the issues, not the contributors. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No one takes the Runes version seriously. A 1960 review by David T. Cattel in the The Western Political Quarterly says Rune's "introduction can be dismissed as propaganda without scholarly value." Marx scholar Robert C Tucker reviewed it in 1960 in The Slavic and East European Journal and said "Runes, who has produced here a not completely accurate new translation of the essay, wittingly or unwittingly misses the main point in giving it the misleading title "A World Without Jews", and in using it to present Marx, in his Introduction, as a theoretical originator of modern totalitarian practices of anti-Semitism. The criticism of Marxism is a very important task for scholars, but it should not be performed on such a flimsy or fraudulent basis." additionally, it wasnt the first English translation--the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Moscow did an earlier English translation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good points, which belong in the article IMO, assuming we're not going to have a separate article for the Runes version, which is another possible outcome. Robert C. Tucker seems citable enough. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We can mention that in a section but in the lead would be excessive — and a re-title would be... highly irrational. El_C 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bold as you wish me to be, Ludvikus, because the three books I possess in print which featrue the work (that use two different translations) all use OtJQ; because all other translations —except that single one— I've seen use that title; because marxists.org (the largest repository of marxist works) use that title; because google scholar mentions it +35 time more. Et cetera, etc. Being bold does not mean giving undue weight to a single source/title, one that by every measure sees much less usage than the original, longstanding one. I doubt you would be able to gain consensus and persuade me so long as you fail to show usage. El_C 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Process

So, what now? It's been moved, despite the move debate still having several days to run. The move notice at WP:RM still reads A World Without Jews → On the Jewish Question but the one on this page now reads It has been proposed below that On the Jewish Question be renamed and moved to On the Jewish Question. Do I move it back and protect it? That would mean that the current lead section was completely out of step with the title. Suggestions welcome, please try to make them consistent to Wikipedia policy, procedures etc.. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to protect it as far as I'm concerned. I certainly am not going to Revert anything. I'm interested in consensus and dialogue and not in an Edit War. Regarding Boldness - I do not understand your reaction to that. It is WP policy to tell editors to be bold. That just means that we should use our judgment - to the limit of an edit war. Now I want to take some time-out to research the comments by editor User:El_C. I'm hopeful we can reach a consesus. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I reversed the order at the RM page. Now we are having a discussion about whether to move it to the new title, because it was moved without consensus or a proper move discussion (which is why I moved it back). Thanks for your patience. El_C 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just realized I confused you in the above with another. I'll be back in a flash with his/her name & contribution. --Ludvikus (talk)

I was considering moving it back to A World Without Jews which was the title at the start of the discussion regarding this WP:RM. My primary reason for being here is to help others sort it out. This preemptive move made this a bit more difficult IMO, but reversing it would just make it worse. Or that was my feeling.

By all means be bold, but also learn from your mistakes and those of others. Preemptive move(s) are not helpful IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problemo, Andrewa. I had not believed there would be strong objection to my Move. But we've "Moved on" as follows:

• Also, I just realized I confused you in the above with another. I'll be back in a flash with his/her name & contribution. --Ludvikus (talk)
• Here's very informative comment(s) I find so useful I'll Cut & Past them here for all of us to ponder carefull:
  • A 1960 review by David T. Cattel in the The Western Political Quarterly says Rune's "introduction can be dimissed as propaganda without scholarly value."
  • Marx scholar Robert C. Tucker reviewed it in 1960 in The Slavic and East European Journal and said "Runes, who has produced here a not completely accurate new translation of the essay, wittingly or unwittingly misses the main point in giving it the misleading title "A World Without Jews", and in using it to present Marx, in his Introduction, as a theoretical originator of modern totalitarian practices of anti-Semitism.
  • The criticism of Marxism is a very important task for scholars, but it should not be performed on such a flimsy or fraudulent basis." additionally, it wasnt the first English translation--the Foreign Languages Publishing House in Moscow did an earlier English translation. User:Boodlesthecat

I personally thank User:Boodlesthecat for these facts. What I'm most greatful for are these precise and exact refernces which can be verified and put into our Encyclopedia. Let me digest all this relevant material. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, as long as it isn't in the lead. That was the problem. That and that odd first section. El_C 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not overdo the proceduralism. Unilateral, undiscussed moves should follow bold, revert, discuss cycle. As there were (strong) objections, it was reverted back. Now a proper move discussion about it can take place. When all else fails, use common sense. El_C 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

El_C, I'm with you. I think we've moved on. Here's where I am now, after I've diggested it.

• The Question is what is the article about, is it not. Can we agree that it's about that writting of Marx of 1843 which he first published in 1844 under the German title which is also the uniform title given to it by the LOC & the BL? And therefore, that should be the title of the article.
• Next, I have just turned the Red Marx-Lenin Institute into Blue Marx-Lenin Institute. Who knows why that was necessary & is relevant here? I suspect that's where the Original manuscripts of Marx are now, and that the Institute has changed its name in 1999 to that long one I cannot remember. Anyway, I believe that they are the ones who made the Digital version of our text widely available in the 1999's (before 1999) under the name the Scholars gave it at the institute and that these were published in the Collected Works of Marx and Engles around that time. And that's the kind of research were need to do for our Wikipedia because no one else has done it for us. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, if you had read the wikipedia article you would know that a manuscript of the essay Zur Judenfrage has not been transmitted. According to books.google, the book Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question by I. Rennap from 1943 has a paragraph "Marx on the Jewish Question" on page 65. Thus it seems that the essay had been called On the Jewish Question in English language before the book of Runes appeared in 1959. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying? Please correct your typos, if any? You're the one who gives specifics, so I'm very interested in any Fact you direct me to. In the mean time, can you guys please help me fix the "REDIRECT" of the Disambiguation page? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've linked the above - hope you don't object? I'm digesting what your saying still! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He's saying an English translation using the OtJQ title existed almost two decade before Rune's title. El_C 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! We're getting somewhere finally. Here's the book: [7]. It's a short work, secondary one, and a commentary. I'm a bibliophile and am interested in that fact. I'll try to learn more about it. But - it shows nothing about the lack of an English imprint preeding 1959. The "Jewish question" is what the subject of the book of Marx is all about. So what? Naturally, this book will talk about the "Jewish question" as Marx so it. But you guys have utterly failed to show me that the "book" published in English is, and remains, "A World Without Jews." I agree that Marx is not responsible for that. But you guys fail to distinguish between the Title of the Text and its Content - 2 different things. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, can you provide any citations for the work being referred to in secondary sources as A World Without Jews? That there is a translation published in English called A World Without Jews is not disputed; the question is, should we prefer that title over the title used for the translations in a number of other sources, notably the Marx-Engels Reader. One way of deciding this would be to see how the article is referred to in other sources.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If I had followed the link to the 1950 English translation of Abram Leon: The Jewish Question, I had known from footnote 3 that the essay had been published as On the Jewish Question, in an edition Selected Essays by Karl Marx (New York, 1926), p.88. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lower case 't'

The title of the 1926 translation has a minuscule 't' in 'the'. This version is used in most secondary texts which refer to the English title of the essay. Thus this articles title should use a lower case t, too. --Schwalker (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A World Without Jews

User:VoluntarySlave, in answer to your question, almost right above, here I give you the Secondary Source you ask for:

Look here:

Transcribed by User:Ludvikus on April 29, 2008, from: [8]

The Western Socialist

Vol. 27 - No. 212

No. 1, 1960

pages 5-7

"A WORLD WITHOUT JEWS

Under the above heading a small book has been issued consisting mainly of articles by Karl Marx on "The Jewish Question."

These articles were first published in 1844, partly in the "German-French Yearbook" (1) and partly in "The Holy Family" (2),

and form part of the criticism by Marx and Engels of the Young Hegelian viewpoint, with particular reference to the views of Bruno Bauer, a leading exponent of this viewpoint."

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• The author of this "review" is "J.M." - I don't know yet who that is. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, that's a review of the book; it doesn't establish that that title is used independently to refer to the essay. What you need is a work on Marx that refers to the essay by that title. For instance, States of Injury by Wendy Brown (Princeton, 1995) discusses the essay and refers to it by the title "On the Jewish Question"; is there a similar discussion that uses the other title? I mean, I think the fact that all the other editions of the essay I mentioned on your talk page call it "On the Jewish Question" probably means that that is how we should refer to it; the only reason not to would be if the essay gets refered to by the other title.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On The Jewish Question [9]

That's the definitive title based on the collected works published by the reference in that External link; it's also derived from ::the Marx-Engles Institute which, I recollect, was also published by International Publishers. But as a single book, in the English speaking world we only have A World Without Jews, a compilation by Dagobert D. Runes, in 1959. That's extremely import - because that's the source of the view that Marx was an anti-Semite. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "T" is capitalized since it is referring to Bauer's "The Jewish Question," (hence, it is On *"The Jewish Question."* The book is often somewhat misunderstood to be Marx on "the Jewish question ", rather than primarily his commentary on on Bauer. However, Ludvikus, it is incorrect to say "we only have" the questionable Runes translation. There was an earlier 1958 translation, for eg, by Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. In any case, Runes' translation is discredited enough to be not considered anything other than an historical footnote, and was soon superseded by far more reliable translations. And you are mistaken with your assertion that Runes was "the source of the view that Marx was an anti-Semite"--that view had been put forth decades earlier within Jewish theological circles; see, eg Carlebach. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely wonderful work on your part, Boodlesthecat. I am very much excited by your Encyclopedic discover. I'm going to look very carefully at your finding - and with delight. For this, I give the the following rendition of all the extant works of both Marx and Engles, in 50 Volume, compiled & published from 1975-2005 (yes, 30 years to complete!): Marx/Engles Collected Works - I just developed this article/stub! --Ludvikus (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, note the correct spelling for Frederick Engels (Engels). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo correction duly noted! I've found no listing of the item with the LOC or WorldCat. Will check HUC next! --~~

By Karl Marx, Helen Lederer

Published 1958

Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion

Jews

84 pages

I've transcribed your finding - a gem - above for all to see! --Ludvikus (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't get in - the catalog of the HUC. So, it looks like an obscure(sic-my spelling sometimes is atrocious) work - and the title seems not to be available. Who is/was this Helen Lederer anyway? Anyway, I think that it's established that A World Without Jews is most notable imprint. That does not mean it was accurate, good, scholarly, etc. It just means it was known to exist - and it caused quite a scandal. It was, and remains, the only Englidh language of our text in the form of a single monograph, to this day. True, you can get it online in digital form, and it's available in the collected works. But these facts are simple encyclopedic truths we can know just by going to the libraries. None of that is OR. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, who is Frederick Engles? Do we need him/it? How about a Speedy Deletion on it/him? ----

The fact that there are few stand-alone editions of On The Jewish Question is not so unusual. Marx didnt publish his first (relatively short) book until 1845 (The Holy Family). Prior to that, his published writings were magazine articles (and there were longer works like the German Ideology and the 1844 manuscripts that weren't published until many years later). So it's standard to include On The Jewish Question in collections of Marx' short "early works", or other collections such as "Marx on Religion," rather than alone.

There is no notable Engles, it's a typo; I guess redirected because it's a common typo. And I think you meant "monograph," not "monogram" above. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, thanks again - a bad habit in typos. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)