Talk:Why Marx Was Right

Review summaries

First collapse box is for the original summaries I wrote, where each paragraph is a review. The second is the rewriting by theme of comments. The next version is the one in the article, with copyediting to be more concise and reduce reliance on quotation. (All of this was done with Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections in mind.) I'm including the old ones just in case they're useful to refer back to.

Extended content

Jeff Archer of Social Alternative praised the book as a "timely tour de force that reaffirms the contemporary relevance of Marxist analysis".

Francis Wheen, writing for the Financial Times, was disappointed by the book, viewing Eagleton as "trying too hard to reach the general reader". Wheen saw Eagleton's choice of misconceptions to be "the easiest to hit" and criticised that his "rebuttals do not always confirm the promise of his title", such as the chapters on utopianism and determinism. He found that "some of his analogies are simply baffling", but that "there are some delicious imaginative insights". Wheen observed a conspicuous absence of Marx's labour theory of value.

Dennis O'Brien of The Christian Century found that Eagleton offers "convincing counterarguments" to each objection to Marxism. O'Brien saw Eagleton as a "serious and determined critic of the capitalist status quo" but commented that he employs "rhetorical pyrotechnics" which could mean that "the force of the argument is lost".

J.W. Miller of Choice highly recommended the book, saying that "Eagleton's straightforward, witty prose will draw readers" and suggesting it as an introduction text rather than a "comprehensive survey".

Philip Goldstein of Symploke found Eagleton's tone "amusingly polemical". He wrote that his arguments are "forceful but well-known". Goldstein commented that the book "ignores or denies the history or evolution of Marxism" and avoids post-Marxism. He criticised a claim of writers and scholars "not subvert[ing] the status quo", as part of the superstructure of society, as "too sweeping".

Social Scientist's Paramjit Singh believed that Eagleton did a "wonderful job" of "clearing some misconceptions regarding Marx and Marxism", viewing the book as "highly readable" and the materialism chapter as a highlight. However, Singh commented that the analysis is "purely theoretical" and found an "absence of empirical data, especially missed in the chapter on economic aspects".

Mark Bergfeld of Rethinking Marxism praised that "the book is very humorous" and approved of the aim to popularise Marxism, but saw Eagleton's writing as "trapped within the confines of the market" for presenting market socialism as the alternative to Stalinism.

Morgan Alexander Brown of Libertarian Papers criticised that Eagleton's arguments against Marxism were chosen "nearly at random" and advert economic objections to Marxism such as criticisms of labour theory of value or of Marx's description of surplus value being contradicted by his documentation of subjective exchange value. Viewing Eagleton as neither defining his terminology, nor describing socialism beyond its bureaucracy or absence of markets, Brown critiqued that he conflated state interventionism with laissez-faire economics and offered no solution to the causes of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Brown found the book "short on theory" as well as "uncharacteristically short on substance, wit, and humor".

In a 2014 article for Estudios de Asia y Africa, José Carlos Castañeda Reyes that the book provided an "excellent theoretical basis" for which to consider the future of the Egyptian revolution that occurred in the year of its publication, and future socialism in general.

Sunday Herald's Lesley McDowell praised Eagleton's prose for its "characteristic brio" and found it as "readable and provocative" as Eagleton's other works.

Kavish Chetty, reviewing for both Cape Argus and Daily News, gave mixed feedback, criticising its "worn-out hyperboles" and "barely humorous comparisons", but calling it "still a necessary volume in the reinvigorated quest to rescue Marx".

Lorenzo Bernaldo de Quirós, in Actualidad Economica, labelled the book as a disappointment to both Marxists and critics of Marxism, criticising its prose as inferior to Marx's or that of many Marxists. De Quirós stated that, in contradiction to Eagleton's claims, Marx viewed that communism would entail a change in human nature, and that fewer than a third of British children live in poverty. De Quirós was also disapproving of Eagleton's uncritical repetition of the theory of surplus value, which he said was discredited.

Owen Hatherley of The Guardian lauded how "believable" and "serious" the anti-Marxism arguments that Eagleton portrays are, finding the writing "erudite yet breezy". Hatherley opined that Eagleton was "convincing" in his rebuttal to anti-Marxist arguments about the Soviet Union, and took it more seriously than other Marxists. However, he noted an absence of political economy analysis.

The Observer's Tristram Hunt reviewed the book as a "disappointment" to Marxists and Eagleton fans, due to its structure and lack of "logical precision, winning prose or intellectual ambition" shown in other Eagleton writings. Hunt found that the humour, creativity and bravado of the Marxist tradition were absent in the book, and viewed it useful for students but not for people "interested in the drama, insights and majesty of Marxism". His review criticised a claim that a third of British children living in poverty and that the anti-utopian chapters overlooks Engel's view that communism would cause a metaphysical change in humanity. However, he praised sections on democracy, free will and modernity.

A Publishers Weekly review summarised that the writing is "witty, entertaining, and incisive" and that Eagleton "offers a richer, more complex and nuanced picture of the father of modern socialism", succeeding in proving "the value of reappraising Marx in the current climate" despite maybe exaggerating "a foundational connection between Marxism and contemporary environmental concerns".

Samuel Goldman of The American Conservative found the book "not very successful" in conveying Marx's beliefs or showing them to be compelling. He praised that Eagleton's objections were mostly not straw-men and reviewed that Eagleton's theoretical analysis was better than his historical analysis, though "his arguments are often elementary and sometimes glib". Goldman particularly criticised Eagleton's account of Soviet Russia, saying that he "idealizes his political history" and that his economic history "would be laughable if it were not morally repugnant". According to Goldman, Eagleton fails to explain why capitalism cannot continue to adapt to changes "for quite a while longer" and that he is in denial that "Marxism makes unrealistic demands on human behavior".

The New Republic's John Gray gave a scathing review, finding the book to be "an apologia" of Marx, despite Eagleton's repeated utterance that "nothing in Marx's thought is beyond criticism". Gray found Eagleton's rejection of the view that Marx was a determinist to be "hard to reconcile" with Marx's conception of socialism as "scientific". He argued that Eagleton's religiosity causes him to "gloss over" Marx's objection to religion and criticises his defence of pre-Stalin Soviet Russia, saying that "communism in practice had more than a passing resemblance to the predatory culture commonly associated with laissez-faire capitalism".

Adam Tooze of The Times Literary Supplement suggested that Eagleton is "pandering to a notionally naive readership", viewing his defence of the Soviet Union and Lenin as "British barroom Trotskyism at its laziest" and accusing him of "gross distortions" in his selective portrayal of facts like the Bolsheviks' death penalty abolition and the lack of bloodshed in the Soviet Union's founding and dissolution. Tooze viewed the language as "crude" and questioned why Eagleton's philosophical anthropology is drawn from early Marx and why he did not address the ways in which his view of situated subjectivity is similar to Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger but leads to different conclusions. However, he saw the "central theoretical sections" as potentially useful to historians, praising the third to sixth chapters as somewhat redeeming, with the "knockabout language ... toned down" and Eagleton's vision of Marxism matching that of his other writings.

Kevin D. Williamson of Commentary wrote negatively of the book, describing its rhetoric as "workmanlike" and criticising its prose style. Williamson said that Eagleton gave "bizarre exculpations" of Marxist states, such as praising the benefits of childcare in East Germany, that he failed to explore how the financial crisis of 2008 was aggravated by "central planning, of the sort contemplated by scientific materialists like Marx", and that his "glaring weaknesses of argument" are "perplexing" from a man of his authority.

Barbara Foley, writing in Science & Society, stated that it is "a useful primer" for newcomers and experienced leftists and an "intelligent and persuasive engagement" with Marxism. However, Foley critiqued that the coverage of the USSR and China was "woefully inadequate", commenting that the later is mentioned only twice with "dismissive modifiers". Foley also suggested that some of Eagleton's comments about peaceful action and reform understated the role of revolution in Marx's vision.

In Economic and Political Weekly, Devdatt Dubhashi praised that Eagleton is doing "yeoman service to correct a number of vulgar misconceptions about Marx", but stated that the book lacked coverage of Marxist economics, and believed that the "ironies, jokes and provocative similies" are "great fun" but may confuse those unfamiliar with Eagleton.

Alan Jacobs of First Things believed Eagleton's counterarguments were "largely, but not wholly, unconvincing", saying that Eagleton's description of Marx better matches John Stuart Mill and that his equivalency between capitalist and communist police states is mistaken because authoritarianism forms "lengthy periods" of the latter but not the former.

The Age's Stuart MacIntyre praised Eagleton's "lively and ingenious" approach and compared his "verbal exuberance" favourably to George Bernard Shaw.

The Australian's Mark Bahnisch believed that the humour was "flat, even forced" and that Eagleton was forming counterarguments to "lazy talking points rather than with a combative opponent or their text". Bahnisch accused Eagleton of idealism, saying that "he cannot persuasively identify a globally organised working class or a political movement that might challenge capital's reign".

In The American Interest, Jeremy D. Mayer said that Eagleton was propagating a myth of Marx as a reformer, as Marx opposed reform "except when tactically required for momentary advantage", and criticised Eagleton for distancing Marx from crimes committed by his follows in the Soviet Union, China, Romania and Cambodia.

Fred Inglis of Times Higher Education lauded Eagleton for "his infallible dash, his unnerving hyperbole and explosive jokes" as well as "undoubted mastery" in his understanding of Marx. However, he critiqued that his counterarguments contain "rather more assertion than argument", that Eagleton devotes too much of the book to materialism, which is only important to "theological Marxists" after Ludwig Wittgenstein, and that Eagleton omits Marx's "critique of the callousness of capitalists" and contemporary Marxists such as Giovanni Arrighi and David Harvey who anticipated the 2007–2008 financial crisis.

Writing in Weekend Australian, Guy Rundle called the book "about as good an exposition" of Marx as "one is likely to see", but stated that "the book points backwards rather than forward" and chooses misconceptions only from "either ends of the spectrum of Marx's ideas". Rundle saw a "core problem with the determination to defend Marx's work as a single system" and found the weakest section to be one in which Eagleton accounted for Stalinism as "mere aberration".

Frank Barry of The Irish Times characterised the book as a "short, witty and highly accessible jaunt", describing the sixth chapter as the "most enlightening" and the second as the "most dispiriting". He criticised several of Eagleton's arguments on the grounds that: global poverty was falling; the transition away from feudalism achieved in Eastern Europe and under Mao were done "at far less cost" by U.S. administrations of East Asia and the U.K. in Ireland with Land Acts; and that fixing both price and quantity of goods leads to excesses of some commodities and shortages of others.

Extended content

The book entered the Canadian Maclean's bestseller list in the non-fiction category in 13 June 2011 at tenth place, rising to sixth place the following week. The Calgary Herald, measuring sales in Calgary placed the book ninth in bestselling non-fiction on 19 March 2016.

The book's utility and success in showing the relevance of Marx was characterised differently by different reviewers. Those praising it as a success included: Archer, who saw it as a "timely tour de force that reaffirms the contemporary relevance of Marxist analysis"; Rundle, who wrote that it is "about as good an exposition" of Marx as "one is likely to see"; and Publishers Weekly, who reviewed that it shows "a richer, more complex and nuanced picture" of Marx that proves "the value of reappraising Marx in the current climate". Dubhashi also saw Eagleton as performing "yeoman service to correct a number of vulgar misconceptions about Marx". Chetty gave some criticism but saw it as "still a necessary volume in the reinvigorated quest to rescue Marx".

Dissenting critics included: Goldman, who saw it as "not very successful" in outlining Marx's beliefs or their compelling nature; de Quirós, who said it was disappointing to both Marxists and critics of Marxism; and Hunt, who said Marxists and Eagleton fans would be disappointed by its structure and lack of Eagleton's characteristic "logical precision, winning prose or intellectual ambition". Tooze said Eagleton is "pandering to a notionally naive readership". The book was recommended as an introductory text, but not a "comprehensive survey", by Miller, but as a "useful primer" for both newcomers and experienced leftists by Foley. In a 2014 article for Estudios de Asia y Africa, José Carlos Castañeda Reyes that the book provided an "excellent theoretical basis" for which to consider the future of the Egyptian revolution that occurred in the year of its publication, and future socialism in general.

The topic of humour polarised critics. Bergfeld asserted that "the book is very humorous", Goldstein said the tone is "amusingly polemical" and Inglis praised Eagleton's "infallible dash, his unnerving hyperbole and explosive jokes". Barry, Miller and Publishers Weekly all praised the book for its wit. Macintyre praised Eagleton's "lively and ingenious" approach and compared his "verbal exuberance" favourably to George Bernard Shaw. Dubhashi reviewed that his "ironies, jokes and provocative similies" are "great fun" but may confuse those unfamiliar with Eagleton. In contrast, Bahnisch saw the humour as "flat, even forced" and Chetty critiqued "worn-out hyperboles" and "barely humorous comparisons". Brown and Hunt even criticised that humour was absent, with Brown calling the book "uncharacteristically short on substance, wit, and humor" and Hunt writing that the humour, creativity and bravado of the Marxist tradition were absent.

Commentary on Eagleton's overall prose style was similarly mixed. It was various described as "highly readable" (Singh), "erudite yet breezy" (Hatherley), "entertaining, and incisive" (Publishers Weekly) and as a "short" and "highly accessible jaunt" (Barry). Sunday Herald's Lesley McDowell praised Eagleton's prose for its "characteristic brio" and found it as "readable and provocative" as Eagleton's other works. In contrast, O'Brien commented that the "rhetorical pyrotechnics" mean that "the force of the argument is lost". Wheen said that Eagleton was "trying too hard to reach the general reader". De Quirós said the prose was inferior to Marx's or many Marxists's.

Eagleton's style of rhetoric drew criticism: Williamson found it "workmanlike". Gray said that the book is "an apologia" of Marx, despite Eagleton's repeated utterance that "nothing in Marx's thought is beyond criticism". Williamson found it "perplexing" that a man of his authority had such "glaring weaknesses of argument". Jacobs was mostly unconvinced by Eagleton's arguments, while Wheen identified both "delicious imaginative insights" and "baffling" analogies. While Inglis praised Eagleton's "undoubted mastery" of the topic, he said that the rebuttals given contain "rather more assertion than argument". Goldman saw the theoretical analysis as better than the historical, but criticised that "arguments are often elementary and sometimes glib". Goldstein saw Eagleton's counterarguments as "forceful but well-known", while O'Brien believed that they were "convincing".

Critics were divided on whether the objections to Marxism that Eagleton chose were appropriate. Singh praised Eagleton for a "wonderful job" in "clearing some misconceptions regarding Marx and Marxism". Goldman believed that the objections are not straw-men, and Hatherley lauded that they are "believable" and "serious". In contrast, Wheen believed they were chosen as the easiest to rebut, and that the counterarguments "do not always confirm the promise of his title", such as those for utopianism and determinism. Brown found the objections to be chosen "nearly at random" and Bahnisch said that Eagleton was arguing with "lazy talking points rather than with a combative opponent or their text". Rundle said that it "points backwards rather than forward" and that objections are chosen only from "either ends of the spectrum of Marx's ideas".

Some reviewers commented on topics not covered in the book. Hatherley and Dubhashi saw a lack of Marxian economics. Singh said that Eagleton's analysis is "purely theoretical" and omits empirical data, particularly missed in the fifth chapter, on economics. Both Brown and Wheen commented on the absence of Marx's labour theory of value, while Brown and de Quirós said that Marx's theory of surplus value, repeated by Eagleton, is discredited. Goldstein said that Eagleton "ignores or denies the history or evolution of Marxism", not covering post-Marxism. Inglis recommended including Marx's "critique of the callousness of capitalists", and contemporary Marxists such as Giovanni Arrighi and David Harvey who anticipated the 2007–2008 financial crisis. Bahnisch accused Eagleton of idealism, because he fails to "persuasively identify a globally organised working class or a political movement that might challenge capital's reign". Tooze questioned why Eagleton's philosophical anthropology is drawn from early Marx and why he did not address the ways in which his view of situated subjectivity is similar to Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger but leads to different conclusions.

Eagleton's defence of the pre-Stalinist Soviet Union, and other communist countries was largely criticised. Barry found the second chapter, on this topic, the "most dispiriting" one, while Rundle said that Eagleton's account of Stalinism as "mere aberration" is the weakest section of the book. Goldman said that he "idealizes his political history" on this topic and that his economic history "would be laughable if it were not morally repugnant". Gray said that "communism in practice had more than a passing resemblance to the predatory culture commonly associated with laissez-faire capitalism". Tooze characterised his defence of the Soviet Union and Lenin as "British barroom Trotskyism at its laziest" and accused him of "gross distortions" in his selective portrayal of facts like the Bolsheviks' death penalty abolition and the relative lack of bloodshed in the Soviet Union's founding and dissolution. Bergfeld gave a different criticism, that Eagleton is "trapped within the confines of the market" for presenting market socialism as the alternative to Stalinism, while Hatherley found Eagleton "convincing" in his rebuttal to anti-Marxist arguments about the Soviet Union and said that he took it more seriously than other Marxists.

In addition to coverage of the Soviet Union, Foley found mention of China to be "woefully inadequate", as it is only referenced twice, both times with "dismissive modifiers". Williamson believed that Eagleton gave "bizarre exculpations" of Marxist states, such as his praise of the benefits of childcare in East Germany. Mayer wrote negatively of Eagleton distancing Marx from crimes committed by his followers in the Soviet Union, China, Romania and Cambodia. Jacobs stated that an equivalency made between capitalist and communist police states was mistaken because authoritarianism constitutes "lengthy periods" of the latter but not the former. In rebuttal to Eagleton, who said that Eastern Europe and Maoist China transitioned away from feudalism after communism, Barry said that this was done "at far less cost" by U.S. administrations of East Asia, and by the U.K. in Ireland with Land Acts.

A number of reviews took issue with some factual claims made by Eagleton, or presentation of the material. Why Marx Was Right asserts that a third of British children live in poverty, a claim criticised by both Hunt and de Quirós. The same reviewers also took issue with Eagleton's portrayal of Marx and human nature, arguing that Marx and Engels saw communism as entailing a change in human nature. Goldman concurred on the second point, saying that "Marxism makes unrealistic demands on human behavior"; he separately said that Eagleton fails to justify why capitalism could not continue adapting to change. Brown found the book "short on theory", writing that Eagleton failed to define his terminology or describe socialism beyond its bureaucracy of absence of markets. Brown critiqued that Eagleton conflated state interventionism with laissez-faire economics and offered no solution to the causes of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Similarly, Williamson wrote that the book failed to explore how the financial crisis of 2008 was aggravated by "central planning, of the sort contemplated by scientific materialists like Marx". Barry said that, in contrast to Eagleton's economic claims, global poverty was falling, and fixing both price and quantity of goods leads to excesses of some commodities and shortages of others.

Some reviewers stated that Eagleton misrepresented Marx. Gray viewed Eagleton's rejection of Marx as a determinist as "hard to reconcile" with Marx's conception of socialism as "scientific". He argued that Eagleton's religiosity causes him to "gloss over" Marx's objection to religion. Publishers Weekly said that Eagleton perhaps exaggerated "a foundational connection between Marxism and contemporary environmental concerns" in the tenth chapter. Both Foley and Mayer gave feedback on Marx's views of reform: Foley said that the role of revolution was understated, while Mayer wrote that Eagleton was propagating a myth of Marx as a reformer, because Marx opposed reform "except when tactically required". Overall, Jacobs characterised Eagleton's description of Marx as better matching John Stuart Mill. Rundle saw a "core problem with the determination to defend Marx's work as a single system".

Reviewers highlighted various sections as their preferred part of the book. Singh praised the content on materialism, while Hunt praised coverage of democracy, free will and modernity. Tooze praised chapters three to six as somewhat redeeming of the rest of the book, with potential utility to historians, the "knockabout language ... toned down" and Eagleton's vision of Marxism matching that of his other writings. Barry described the sixth chapter, on materialism, as the "most enlightening" of the book. Dissenting, Inglis criticised that Eagleton gives too much weight to materialism, a topic only important to "theological Marxists" after the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

— Bilorv (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaccessible sources

• Meynell, Hugo. Heythrop Journal; Oxford Vol. 56, Iss. 3, (May 2015): 516-517. DOI:10.1111/heyj.12249_57 Why Marx Was Right. By Terry Eagleton. Pp. xiv, 258. New Haven/London, Yale University Press, 2011, £28.91.
• The Irrepressible Revolutionary: Marx for the Uninitiated, the Unconvinced and the Unrepentant Palmer, Bryan D. Critique; Abingdon Vol. 40, Iss. 1, (2012): 119. DOI:10.1080/00111619.2011.640067
• MARX'S IDEAS STILL RELEVANT: [FOURTH Edition] The Oregonian; Portland, Or. [Portland, Or]. 22 Aug 1993: E02.
• Most of Richard Wolff's Times Literary Supplement review (beyond the free preview).

Help accessing any of these sources would be appreciated, though there's likely nothing in them not found in other sources. — Bilorv (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you still need these? And have you tried WP:RX? I can help if still needed—just ping me! czar 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I think it's alright at this point—I don't think there'll be anything in them that the article is incomplete without. — Bilorv (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

Reviewer: ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll take care of this one, I'll try and have some initial comments out in the next hour or so. This is my first GA review, so I'll try my best! -ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio

• Y Used Earwig's Copyvio detector, and the only visible ones were quotations from reviews in the §Reception section and the title of the book itself. Seems perfectly fine in this department.

Stability

• Y The page itself was created by one singular user in full a full 7 or so years after it was initially made as a redirect to Eagleton's page, and the talk page history was very short. This article is very much stable.

Prose / MoS

• ? A few minor prose issues here and there:
  • Second para of the lede, "a number of critics" -> "several/some/many critics have said"
  • Third para of the lede, "strength of argument" -> "the strength of argument"
    • Does "lacking strong arguments" work instead? I feel like "the strength of argument" is not quite right (like it would have to be "the strength of argument that reviewers expected" or something). — Bilorv (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • That should work just fine!ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Second para of Background, "prior to the economic crisis" -> "before the economic crisis" and "a number of reviewers" -> "several/some/many"
  • First para of Synopsis, "capitalist ones, and" -> "capitalist ones and"
  • Second para of Synopsis, "as determinist" -> "as being determinist" and "appropriate" -> "an appropriate"
  • Third para of Synopsis, "a human nature" -> "human nature" and "casual relationship on" -> "casual relationship with"
  • Fifth para of Synopsis, "independent from Marxism" -> "independent of Marxism", "interplay" -> "the interplay", and "under capitalism nature" -> "under capitalism, nature"
  • First para of Writing style, "mean that" -> "meant that"
  • First para of Subject matter, "surplus value" -> "surplus-value" and "idealism, because" -> "idealism because"
  • Second para of Subject matter, "Soviet Union, and" -> "Soviet Union and" and "selective portrayal of facts" -> "the selective portrayal of facts"
• Aside from these, however, the article was very well written.

Referencing

• Y All the citations and references are from trustable and verifiable sources, and there's plenty of inline citations. Very good.

POV

• Y Maintains a pretty even balance of the positive and negative aspects of the book — seems fine to me.

Original research

• Y Doesn't look like it, unless the nominator is secretly Eagleton himself.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

• Y The article covers all the key content needed for a book like Why Marx Was Right and seems to thoroughly detail them all.

Media

• Y Ever piece of media on the article is freely licensed, aside from the book cover, which is fine to use in the context of the article.

Conclusion

Aside from the few minor grammatical changes specified in the given section, this article is practically a hair's length away from GA status. Overall a great article. Impressive work @Bilorv:, be sure to let me know your thoughts on it. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, ExcellentWheatFarmer. I am of course biased but it looks like you've assessed all the relevant things. I've offered an alternative to one of the wording changes you requested and implemented the rest. — Bilorv (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, in which case I’m happy to pass this. Good job!ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Lead

The writer is a 'literary theorist, critic, and public intellectual'. Not a philosopher nor historian. Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236: I notice you're quoting the article Terry Eagleton, which is not a reliable source, but I'm more confused about where the lead calls Eagleton a philosopher and a historian. I can only see the descriptor "academic", and only recall having called him an "academic". — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The writer has no academic title in philosophy. A reader of this page should be warned.Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Well to quote the article "He is currently Distinguished Professor of English Literature at Lancaster University", a university I was a lecturer at for several years, many years ago. I was at Lancaster University from pretty well when it started. It evolved to be a top class university. So, what are you trying to say? --Bduke (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've worked on dozens of book articles and can't recall ever specifying a profession that the author is "not", including many books by non-academics. No source has been provided that verifies that Eagleton is not a philosopher (not a chartered job description) or has never held a position in a philosophy department, and philosophy is only one of several subject areas of Why Marx Was Right. — Bilorv (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Featured on the Chinese Wikipedia

FYI zh:Talk:马克思为什么是对的#典范条目评选 czar 04:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Czar, and it's a huge honour to have your work translated into another language. I'm grateful to all editors involved. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Reception

I'm curious as to why the reception section refers only to the publication, rather than the authors of the reviews? For example, why does the article state:

Times Higher Education enjoyed Eagleton's "infallible dash, ... unnerving hyperbole and explosive jokes"

Instead of:

Fred Inglis enjoyed Eagleton's "infallible dash, ... unnerving hyperbole and explosive jokes" :3 F4U (they/it) 05:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: this is through discussion between myself and czar at the FAC. These critics are typically non-notable, but the publications are often recognisable names (and also give a sense of political orientation) and are easiest for readability. — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv: One issue that arises by referring to each critic by their publication is that the publications themselves aren't critics. The following selections are awkward because of this usage:

• Dissenting critics included Actualidad Económica, The Guardian's Tristram Hunt and The American Conservative
• In contrast, critics including The Australian, Libertarian Papers and Chetty criticised Eagleton's humour as lacking

These are publications that critics write in, but they aren't critics in themselves. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is an issue, but every method I've tried has substantial issues, including:

• Full name and publication in all instances (unreadable)
• Surname only (unfollowable)
• Full name and publication on first instance, then surname only (combines unreadability with un-followability)

Ultimately this could be worth raising at a wider forum, but this article's status quo is the result of rejecting several other ways of referring to reviews. — Bilorv (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No sources on the "criticism" layer at the summary section

this "criticism" section at the summary part feels a lot like an opinionated essay to me. It doesn't cite any sources regarding it, and often attributes to vague authority figures like "critics argue that" without specifically citing any professional sources supporting the claim. Who are these "critics?"

I've added tags reminding readers of it. Aegesar (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)