Jump to content

Talk:Marxism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Making Clarifications and adding a section on Marx's ontology

[edit]
Hey everyone! I've read through the article and think that adding a section on Marx's ontology (and in particular his doctoral dissertation) could help frame some of the other concepts in the article. One point in particular is that it helps to clarify what exactly constitutes the "base" in the base-superstructure metaphor; namely, that it is nature.
In addition to this I see that the lead has remained very much the same and still includes the political modifier before explaining a distinction between the 'theory' and 'applications'. I would like to try and rewrite it soon.
Before making any changes to the article, I'll post them here, but I would also appreciate feedback for whether or not these changes are warranted or if there is a better place for them. GuugWiki (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the overview

[edit]

As it stands, the overview only seems to describe vulgar Marxism and is likely to be misleading. While I get the need for simplicity, it seems like a problem to offer as simple and uncontroversial something rejected by almost all contemporary Marxists (ie, economism / determinism). It seems to me that not the materialist conception of history but the analysis of capital & the production of surplus value should anchor this section. It’s both far more comprehensively presented by Marx and closer to something like the consensus view than the ever-controversial problems of base & superstructure, etc. 2603:7000:3E00:38DE:301D:7EBF:245F:E498 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is dialectal materialism and historical materialism the same thing?

[edit]

>[...] It uses a dialectical materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, [...]

This makes it sound like they mean the same thing. Yet they link to two different wikipedia articles. Should those two be merged, or should the above paragraph be clarified? --FIQ (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]