Talk:Crisis (Marxian)

Old Untitled Thread

What economic, social, and political crises did Europe experience in the early 17th century?

The article is focused on Communist's view of Capitalism and not on modern contemporary economic crisis (i.e. the crisis on Asia or current crisis on the US, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.30.26 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article, as presented, is highly POV. If it were titled something like "Marxist Theory of Economic Crisis" then it might be OK. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2009-09-08

Overall cleanup and update, reviewing the history I think I'm the single largest contributor to the article. The thread above apparently predates the current titling. Lycurgus (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying that I had no role in the move to the current subject. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Crisis theory

Crisis theory seems to be this article (Crisis (Marxian)), but written from more-or-less a Marxist point of view. I didn't check whether the sources there were all here, but this one is closer to current Wikipedia standards (at least, for sources and references). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it appears that Crisis theory duplicates this subject, but it ought not. 'Crisis theory' should be bigger than a Marxist context and should have points of contact for example with the mathematical topic of Catastrophy theory, i.e. the more general study of system failures. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But does anyone use the term "Crisis theory" other than Marxians. If not, a hat note for the new article should be there.

Regardless, these two articles should be merged, whether the resulting name should be crisis theory, crisis theory (economics), or crisis theory (Marxian). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the mentioned generalization in mathematics (and others there), and as a trope or whatever in journalism (as in The March of Folly) and as a theme in a wide variety of disciplines and areas of discourse, I don't think there's anything matching "Crisis Theory" as a standalone subject but I don't see any reason a wiki article might not treat of them all. In any case the two actually existing articles are fully redundant subjects as currently composed so some action is called for. Also, I would think the existing target "Crisis (Marxian)" would be the one since 1) it was arrived at by an earlier process (in which I was not involved) and 2) I don't know that there's any "crisis theory" as such with Marxism, although it does constitute a topic or theme addressed by and perhaps even central to it. "Crisis theory (economics)" might be easier to tackle than the general concept and could easily make a large article in it's own own right just referencing mainstream bourgeois economic thought. In that case you might want to merge both of these into that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In spite of the redundancy, I'm happy to have both articles remain linked by the merge tags. A brief scan of the other article indicates a tone of mainstream bourgeois thought insofar as its view of Marxism is concerned and this one has the opposite perspective (I'm probably the major contributor ATM). These may be irreconcilable and best left as is where the lack of affix to the other is implicit (i.e. Crisis theory = Marxian Crisis (from a Mainstream Economics Perspective). Or maybe just rename the other Marxian Crisis and have "See Crisis (Marxian) for a treatment of this topic from a Marxist perspective" in it and a "See Marxian Crisis for a treatment of this topic from the perspective of capitalist economics" in this one. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally, Crisis Theory is prolly best done as a disambig page covering the various applicable topics, not just economics. So actually the other is a misnomer and in fact the best thing would be for it to have the title of this one and this one to become Marxian Crisis. May do do this after this posted for a while for comment and/or prepare a merged draft in my space as for Degenerated workers state and Deformed workers state. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting the (content presently at) the two articles remain WP:POVFORKs? This is not good. However, both articles deserve a number of content tags, so it's really difficult to see which material (if any) from either article should be included in an article about the Marxian concept of "Crisis". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Noting I don't have articles in my draft space for either of the Trotskyist concepts above and am unlikely to. Yes I am suggesting that for the time being the status quo remain on this as events and consciousness catch up and the tags and state of affairs fairly exhaustively described above is addressed, which doubtless it eventually will be and sooner rather than later. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)