Talk:Post-Marxism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Socialism (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

new[edit]

i'm slowly building this--Buridan 12:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Marxism?[edit]

What's the difference between "post-Marxism" and "Neo-Marxism"? Le Anh-Huy 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

MORE WIKIPEDIA ERRORS AND ERRORS FOR DELETION[edit]

The statement that:

"post-Marxism argues against derivationism and essentialism (for example, the state is not an instrument and does not ‘function’ unambiguously or relatively autonomously in the interests of a single class)[1]"

is founded unpon the reference source:

"1. ^ Iain Mclean & Alistair Mcmillan, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (Article: State), Oxford University Press, 2003 Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Marxism"

but in it IDIOTIC POLICY REGARDING COPYRIGHTS OF WHAT IS BASIC THOUGHTS WHICH COMMERCIAL PUBLISHERS STEAL THEY HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY BASIS FOR WHAT WAS SAID BUT INFER BY USE OF AN UNFOUNDED EXAMPLE THAT IS UNCLEAR, AMBIGUOUS, AND UNFOUNDED, IT SHOULD BE DELETED AS QUALIFIED AND UNFOUNDED.

EITHER A VALID STATEMENT BE MADE OR IT SHOULD BE DELETED!!

Additionally I noticed this article stated that:

Post-Marxism *** can be used to represent the theoretical work of philosophers and social theorists who have built their theories upon those of Karl Marx and Marxists but exceeded the limits of those theories in ways that puts them outside of Marxism."

Without any quotation what so ever the writer of that passage stated that the abstract "POST-MARXISM" (should be "post-Marxists" not "POST MARXISM") used Marxism to build "their theories" with out any quotes to support such ridiculous contentions. What made them Marxists?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaoskeller (talkcontribs) 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 

Latest Post-Marxists[edit]

Natacha Millache —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxrbwsze (talkcontribs) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this article actually about a subject?[edit]

...If so, I've no idea what it is. The lede certainly doesn't tell us. The 'Semiology and discourse' section looks like an isolated sentence from something vaguely relevant, but goes nowhere. This isn't post-anything. It is instead non-sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)