Talk:Post-Marxism

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

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

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MORE WIKIPEDIA ERRORS AND ERRORS FOR DELETION

message: Natacha Millache  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxrbwsze (talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Post-Marxists 

message: ...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)
thread_title:  Is this article actually about a subject? 

message: Can we come up with a positive definition for post-Marxism? So far this is just a list of people and what post-Marxism is against, which isn't very helpful. Blessant (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Post-Marxism is a trend in political philosophy and social theory which deconstructs Karl Marx's writings and Marxism proper, bypassing orthodox Marxism." MaynardClark (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still don't get what post-Marxism is 

message: There is an uncountable number of post Marxists to cite from (every USSR, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban refugee) but the award winning, world renown economist Thomas Sowell was himself a Marxists up until his Post-Marxist moment. Not mentioning his research, or the lived experiences of the lives of actual Marxists regime escapees is a travesty.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.254.66 (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: post-marxism is not just people who used to be 'marxists'. it is a separate but related ideological framework 81.104.87.43 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Marxism without Thomas Sowell is empty 

message: spivak openly calls herself a marxist - deconstructionist. i think its quite clear she is at least a post-Marxist, perhaps not a 'Post-Marxist' as laclau would say, but thats what i have tried to juggle in the introduction. derrida is not a marxist, but certainly engaged with marx in 'spectres of marx' and the concept of 'hauntology' has been influential for post-marxist scholars like fisher. derrida therefore may be a 'Post-marxist' 31.125.85.48 (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia depends on sources, however, rather than editors' opinions. What good sources refer to either figure as "post-Marxist"? Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: upon reviewing the sources, I believe derrida, whilst having been described as a post-marxist, never understood himself as such. whilst spivak considers herself a deconstuctionist marxist, she much more easily fits into post-colonial studies rather than post-marxism. 81.104.87.43 (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  spivak and derrida as post-Marxist 

message: when compiling the list, i made the error of including people who have been (erroneously, often as an insult) described as post-marxist, but have never identified as such, or really belong to that category. fixing now. 81.104.87.43 (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing people who aren't specifically post-marxist