Talk:Neo-Marxism

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: How to Fix this Article

message: Please see:  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion 

message: Hello! I have been assigned the repair job on this here article. My intention is to focus on layout and clarity of information, as well as structuring any information regarding disagreements. I know very little about Neo-Marxism, so I do hope that some expert will join in this conversation, and help make this page great again! Protips, suggestions, ideas, etc -- send them this way!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLoneDeranger (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  page repair 

message: As NeoMarxism seems to reinvent the dystophics of the other Marxisms the main focus of the article should be on the critique, thu qui bono and such... 2A02:3030:4:712F:7F90:564B:789C:6BCD (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 

message: hard to follow, illogically ordered. 92.18.231.50 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs clarification and reorganisation