User talk:Breadandroses

Welcome!

Hello Breadandroses, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - FrancisTyers 22:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC) ==Sources for Social Movement Unionism== Hello, good work on Social Movement Unionism, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in Social Movement Unionism? You can simply add links, preferably as the inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks! best, kevin [kzollman][talk][reply]

Should be sorted now. Breadandroses 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serapion fraternity

Please look on Talk:Serapion fraternity abakharev 06:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Organized Labour

~~Hi Breadandroses, I saw your editing on Organising model and just wanted to mention that WikiProject Organized Labour is a new project that may interest you.~~

Well, I guess you don't need this note! As I was writing this I checked the project and saw that you already found it. In that case, welcome. :) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hi Breadandroses, I'm still working on it but have been a little busy on other things. Hoping to have some working copy in the next week or so to post.

--Ravells 13:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labor law

Good job! I just tagged civil liberties, it also need some work... As I'm not very knowledgeable in juridical matters, I try to help in other places... Since I'm already leaving you this message, take a look at historical revisionism (political) when you have time, I've been struggling to improve it for some time, but it's been turning a bit into an edit-war... Salud y libertad! Lapaz 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Western Sahara-related vote

===>Here Make your voice heard. Vote or die. And all that. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx's alienation

Thank you for your contributions to Marx's theory of alienation. I've been planning to improve it, but you got a headstart on me. I was even thinking of bringing the article up to feature article status. Featured articles require inline citations though. If you could add some citations for your additions, it would help a lot. Otherwise, I'd have to cut out parts I couldn't find citations for. Also, I noticed you equate "species-being" and "species-essence." I know many of the best writers on Marx do this, but I think it's species-being has a slightly different meaning. See Marx's quote: "Man is a species-being, not only because he practically and theoretically makes the species -- both his own and those of other things -- his object, but also -- and this is simply another way of saying the same thing -- because he looks upon himself as the present, living species, because he looks upon himself as a universal and therefore free being." from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/1st.htm.

I won't be able to do serious work on the article for a couple weeks, but thanks for the improvements you've made so far.--Bkwillwm 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only requires inline citations for featured articles (although they're recommended in other cases too). Citing Marx's works should be adequate as long its not a controversial interpretation. I can add in citations for most of what you wrote unless you're using Geras. I have most of the books on the subject except his.

Regarding species-being and essence.... I did a search on the Marxist Internet Archive for "species essence" and "species-essence" and nothing came up. Apparently Marx doesn't use that exact term (which surprises me). When Marx does write about essence, he talks about an essence as the particular nature of a species. The term species-being is only applied to humans. ("Conscious life activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity. Only because of that is he a species-being. Or, rather, he is a conscious being – i.e., his own life is an object for him, only because he is a species-being. Only because of that is his activity free activity".) From that quotation and then one I posted earlier, I think species-being means a being that make its own purpose and sets its own objectives. This compared with animals who have a purpose dictated by nature. I've seen a few different interpretations of "species-being," and I don't think the concept is clear, but I do think it's distinguished from essence. And I don't mean to criticize you for equating the two. I know many Marx scholars do it.--Bkwillwm 12:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I did a little more research into this. It turns out Marx uses "Gattungswesen" and various translators make this "species-essence" or "species-being." Apparently, the Marxists Internet Archive only uses "species-being." Anyway, seems like the terms meaning is hard to decipher, and it probably deserves some discussion on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help.--Bkwillwm 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agonism/Agonist

Let me explain a bit my reasoning pertaining to these two articles. Both agonist and agonism can have more than one meaning. 'Agonism' as a political theory and 'agonist' as an advocate of that theory. But also 'agonism' as a biochemical property and 'agonist' as a chemical with that property. So a reader may be looking for agonism as a chemical property and end up at the agonism as a political theory and need to be directed to another meaning of 'agonism'. Let me know what you think. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx's theory of human nature

Hello! I've just finally read your article on Marx's conception of human nature. It is interesting and a nice attempt to explain Marx here for which I can only support you. I do, as you might expect, have several comments, on the form and on the substance, if you think we could be able to work on that together... I'm a bit tired just now so I may lack a bit of clarity, but well: first, you should really try to squeeze the text some more (there are some parts where you obviously could make it shorter, which is a necessity here: it's like writing a philosophical article in a newspaper sort of, limited space, limited attention, etc. Of course it's difficult, but we do have to do it; there's also some parts where you could use the "endnotes" system when you are giving references - I'm thinking about the part on the book where a worker speaks); it's probably better if you first gave a try at it. Second, you should be a bit more cautious about some assertions ("it is generally recognized that this is not the case...": long and could be considered POV; you do make some surprising points), although the article is generally balanced (some places should be left for Althusser's "antihumanism", if you're not familiar with that I may help on this one). Third, and most importantly, I do think the article should start by a description of the proletariat's alienation, as exposed by Marx in the 1844 Manuscripts (first chapter), in which it is clear that the state of the proletariat is the negativity of human nature. Not much can be understood about "Marx's theory of human nature" if you don't start by showing that the proletariat is denied it. In the same way, you bypass a bit quickly the These on Feuerbach which criticize the notion of "human nature" as a "specie" (you cite it just to dismiss it as a "pseudo-argument", whether you should actually use it in order to demonstrate that if one may argue that Marx did have a conception of human nature, this conception is radically different from classic humanist philosophy, namely the philosophy of the subject, of an eternal and substantial human nature, which would be the subject of history). And the German word (Gattungwesen is it?) used by Marx for "human nature" should be used in the intro. In brief, the first part should describe the alienation of the proletariat (which you put at the end and evacuate in four sentences, sending back to the other article on alienation, but you should consider both articles as independent) and you shouldn't dismiss the critique of Feuerbach, but instead use it to show how does Marx's "theory of human nature" distinguish itself from classic philosophy". I hope you take into accounts these comments and that we can contribute together on this vast subject, regards, Santa Sangre 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]