Talk:Marxist historiography

message: I think there is a general problem with this article, in and so far as it suggest that historical materialism (dialectical materialism) is a teleological approach - I challenge the author to find a passage where Marx explicitly states that the working-class -will- do something.  It is commonly said that the working-class has historical interests, as well as necessary (versus sufficient) features, but Marx was not a -vulgar- materialist, he clearly understood the subject component to history, else his analysis in civil war in france would have made no sense (i.e. the leadership of the commune played a subject role in determining the fate of the commune as a whole).  
There is also a point in the article where the author uses the word dialectic and determined interchangeable: clearly a mistake!  Dialectics is the understanding that the world is in motion, that there are no static, no 'absolutes'.  If Dialectics were the same as Determinist approaches, clearly Marx's approach would be called: Historical Determinism.  
I encourage the author to take these criticisms into consideration.
(Also, the text referred to below is the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.)
66.227.111.238 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Now all that needs to be done is get some other Marxists on this, fix my POV, fix my bad links, write daughter articles, do sections on IInd international histiography, academic marxism, German sociological marxist history etc. etc. etc. Fifelfoo 05:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialectical vs. Determined 

message: There clearly needs to be overhaul towards neutrality. This just criticizes the subject. Madhava 1947 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I would suggest that the explanation to the Dialectical vs. Determined schism, is a misunderstanding of Marxism, by the author of the above, and a lack of knowledge of especially the Hegelian influence, from where Marx stole the basis for his ideas. 
History is dialectic, but it does move towards an end goal, via the dialectic workings of the "Weltgeist", the end goal in Hegel is the freedom of man, from oppression (Master/slave relation) and this freedom Marx sees as the freedom of the proletarian/working class. So in short the movements of the fabric of history moves dialectic towards this end goal, and thus it is both teleological and there for has a determination, but the move is dialectic.
Thus there is no reason to look for a place where “the working-class -will- do something”. The determination is Marx’s utopian proletarian society, which he sees as the end goal of the workings of history, after the decline of capitalism. 
As to the relevance of Marxist historiography today, in the Anglo-Saxon world and the rest of Europe, a man like Eric Hobsbawm have had, and continues to have, an enormous impact in the academic world.
--Danelaw 75 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  @ Dialectical vs. Determined 

message: The article is fairly neutral in terms of standard academic practice of history as it relates of marxist historiography.  Probably more needs to be done on drawing out two other strands, the teleological theory of history, and particular works of history by marxists.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand instead of NPOV 

message: Perhaps the editors would include the Marxist influence on modern Indian academia, education and historical research? 142.59.203.143 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian History and Romila Thapar, Possible Example