From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article needs referencing and examples. Who is a neo-Marxist in this sense? --BobFromBrockley 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It definitely needs referencing. I'm not familiar with this use of "neo-Marxism" (which seems to be basically equivalent to "Western Marxism"). "Neo-marxism" is a recognized term in political economy (referring to Marxist economists of the 50s and 60s, and also to dependency theorists), and related developments in International Relations. VoluntarySlave 00:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as unreferenced. In fact, it may need to be rewritten to conform to authoritative sources' take on what "neo-Marxism" means (which is probably several different things depending on context). The current article seems very partial and idiosyncratic, and possibly just wrong. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, I've done some quick research, and no source I can find attributes this precise meaning to "neo-Marxism." Nothing I can find (nor my own experience) suggests that the term has a fixed common meaning -- rather (like post-Marxism or post-communism, two more articles that need cleanup) it's a loose term used to denote any number of strands of twentieth-century Marx-derived thought. See this or this, for example. The Dictionary of Marxist Thought, usually authoritative on such subjects, has no entry at all for "neo-Marxism." This article should acknowledge the term's fuzziness rather than putting forth its own idiosyncratic interpretation. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So I've added a new lead paragraph to attempt to alleviate this problem. Much remains to be done, and the article still might be better merged (say, into Western Marxism). -- Rbellin|Talk 03:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is terrible and after reading it, I don't even know what Neo-Marxism is! Fix nao. User: Uriah is Boss 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How to Fix this Article[edit]

This article was created to refer to sociologists who take Weberian approaches to Marxist problems. The fact is, the premier example of this is Daniel Bell and the article on Daniel Bell is far more informative than this article. Because most editors had no idea what this article is supposed to be about, people have, in good faith, added content on real Marxists - not the Weberians the original stub alluded to. This was a well-intentioned ut misguided effort. The solution to this problem is to keep improving the article on Daniel Bell and other sociologists like him (maybe Bourdieu?). These sociologists really do deserve coverage in Wikipedia. But we already have fine articles on them that are far afar more informative than this article is or can be.

The fact is, there is no coherent school of thought called "neo-marxism" so editors working in good faith on this article will never be able to make it work as a good WP article. After seven years, I think it is time to delete it. Our efforts are better spent on the articles that already exist referring to all of these scholars, and the Marxism article - all of those articles are more informative, and anyone interested in research on Weber and Marx will more likely turn to those articles than this one. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Please see: [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)