Talk:Dialectical materialism

message: Reading this article from the top it is not until the third or fourth paragraph that we see anything resembling a definition. The introduction should include a rudimentary definition that is clearer than the current "Dialectic Materialism is the merging of Dialectic and Materialism." Not being an expert on the subject I leave this in another’s more capable hands.--70.29.20.201 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. Please tell me what the hell Dialectical Materialism is, up front. Eunsung (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I third this.  Few things are too complex to explain in a sentence. Surely, something approaching a clear definition has arisen in the many decades through which these ideas have been discussed, taught, pondered.  (This note was originally unsigned by mistake, later signed as follows: --Dankelley (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourthed. Who wrote that, anyway? I mean, sure, sometimes I'll gloss over what was said and have to reread a portion of a text, but the introduction here is just devoid of any information a layman would want. Plumbmeter (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. The introduction seems to refer entirely to natural processes, with no reference at all to social processes, politics or history Clivemacd (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 on that, the opening paragraph uses so many words but has no real meaning. Even if the definition cant be agreed on by scholars, just say that and present a couple of different most commonly held views. It's as if the author was trying to fill a word count rather than actually explain the topic  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.69.218 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I will try to fix this, but my knowledge on Marxist thought is scarce (but since ruling party o the second-largest economy in the world actually believes in this stuff, maybe it should be expanded?)...  Anyhow, I'll read like hell. --TIAYN (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem remains that the only people who want to engage in this article are people who are Marxists. Given that Marxism is the province of the illiterate, you end up with this article... Unless someone is tasked with trying to fix this actually important article not from a Marxist perspective, that is how it will stay. 76.168.4.212 (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Marxism is the province of the illiterate" - even though it's based on  his literature? I spot far-right bigotry. 2.28.151.246 (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a mess, all Marxist related articles are in a mess...

message: Any brief engagement with the literature shows that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model is not how dialectics works. I recommend premier dialectical critic Fredric Jameson's Marxism and Form or Valences of the Dialectic.  Meeeeeeerzfu (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: please point to what do you mean specifically. In the interim I have reverted your edit to the stable version. Best! VV 19:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this article already specifically notes Marx's disavowal of the model ("Marx rejected the language of 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis'"), it seems a bit strange to plaster it on the top of the page in image form. Given that dialectical materialism is a Marxist philosophy, we ought to represent it accurately and impartially in regards to Marx's elaboration of it. Best--  Meeeeeeerzfu (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image is completely wrong