Talk:Marxist philosophy

message: This article was (relatively) recently merged with Marxist theory, and I can't seem to find any discussion of the reasons for this change.  In my opinion, the two subjects deserve to be separated for better coverage -- of the broad theoretical program of Marxism, as opposed to the narrower set of works that are emphatically within philosophy but informed by Marxist thought.  (Since many Wikipedians who edit this set of articles seem interested in Althusser, I'll just point to his essay "Is It Simple to be a Marxist in Philosophy?" as a good piece on this distinction.)  The older version of the article, as of about this edit, was more specifically about Marxism in philosophy; since then, a lot of (good!) content on the roots and development of Marx's thought has been added, and it's not apparently primarily covering its philosophical aspects.  Now, I may be somewhat biased because I wrote much of the older version (though I'll happily concede that it needed a lot of improvement and augmenting whether kept separate from Marxist theory or not) -- but in any case, I'd like to hear other Wikipedians' opinions about the separation or joining of the two topics.  My own opinion is that both Marxist theory and Marxist philosophy are better served by coverage in separate articles, though there is inevitably a lot of overlap.  -- Rbellin|Talk 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion of merge with/separation from [[Marxist theory]]

message: Perhaps "rejectal" should be replaced with something else like "rejection" in the following sentence: "The criteria of acceptation or rejectal .." as rejectal doesn't seem to be an English word .. although I know words can be coined ad hoc. Also, I think "acceptance" is less posh a word than "acceptation" and would better convey the intended meaning as well, so it should be used instead "acceptation".
:Nicely spotted: seems rejectal is not an English word; and "acceptation" is a word but highly nuanced version of acceptance. Oops, was going to change them but they belong to Althusser's quote. :-( Manytexts (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: very uncommon word

message: I wonder if we should have a redirect here (till the article is created), or would it be misleading? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Marxist sociology]]

message: Why are they even on this page? I don’t think Stalin is known for his theoretical contributions (heard he'd had a mean streak with intellectuals) or Deng's commitment to worker's liberation but maybe there should be a page dedicated for bureaucratic state-capitalism that gets called "Socialism and or Marxism and or Communism and or State-Communism and or etc."
:I thought Stalin played a major role in codifying Lenin's ideas into the ideology of "Marxism-Leninism".64.85.231.70 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  whats the deal with Deng Xiaoping and Stalin? 

message: Can't edit, but it seems rude to exclude Sartre from this page, particularly the list of significant marxist theorists, given his influence over French and African Marxist movements in the late 20th century and his recent resurgence. Can somebody add it pls?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.131.103.58 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sartre

message: Before adding any new section(s), it might be a good idea to improve the quality of the article as it stands now. One way to do that is to look for statements without any references. You will find there are many. 
This article needs and is missing citations in many places precisely because it contains original research that no secondary literature can be drawn upon to support. The POV of the editor and his or her take on the subject is quite clear. Look at the section on human rights for example. It is a loose collection of quotes and names put together to support the editor's take on Marx's philosophy concerning human rights. And what the relevance of the last paragraph is ("But the communist revolution does not end with the negation of individual liberty and equality ("collectivism"[14]), but with the "negation of the negation"") with respect to the rest of the section is very unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Editor bias

message: Add a reference to Ernest Untermann, in Science & Revolution (1905) he critically explicates materialist monism. The book is free to read on google, it has been linked on Untermann's wiki page.
71.20.33.60 (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. It's not clear what sort of "reference" you want added or where. Rivertorch (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernest Untermann 

message: Antonio Gramsci should link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
Wiki enhancer (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —  (e • t • c) 06:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014 

message: Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kołakowski should be quoted 

message: :Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]

message: should the content of this section simply be replaced with "Main Article:List of contributors to Marxist theory"? i think it should, given that its essentially just a list of Marxist theorists, just like that article. Comradeka (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace the content of "Notable theorists and works"