Talk:Marxist historiography

Dialectical vs. Determined
I think there is a general problem with this article, in and so far as it suggest that historical materialism (dialectical materialism) is a teleological approach - I challenge the author to find a passage where Marx explicitly states that the working-class -will- do something. It is commonly said that the working-class has historical interests, as well as necessary (versus sufficient) features, but Marx was not a -vulgar- materialist, he clearly understood the subject component to history, else his analysis in civil war in france would have made no sense (i.e. the leadership of the commune played a subject role in determining the fate of the commune as a whole).

There is also a point in the article where the author uses the word dialectic and determined interchangeable: clearly a mistake! Dialectics is the understanding that the world is in motion, that there are no static, no 'absolutes'. If Dialectics were the same as Determinist approaches, clearly Marx's approach would be called: Historical Determinism.

I encourage the author to take these criticisms into consideration.

(Also, the text referred to below is the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.)

66.227.111.238 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Red13

"The German Peasants War is overdetermined and lacks

Marx's most important historical contributions were the 18th Brumaire of ."

What does that mean?? We seem to be missing a couple of words.

Peregrine981 04:46, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Now all that needs to be done is get some other Marxists on this, fix my POV, fix my bad links, write daughter articles, do sections on IInd international histiography, academic marxism, German sociological marxist history etc. etc. etc. Fifelfoo 05:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I recently added the link to the Category Marxist historians, which is completely relevant to the issue, so why Zzuzz cut it off ? J. A. Vergara

Surely this article massively overstates the present day influence of Marxist historical thought? Yes it inspired an interest in social history, but its teleological nature means that it is widely discredited in Anglo-Saxon historigraphy at least, which is more heavily influenced by Rankean tradition of seeking to understand history on its own terms? RGCoopey 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd doubt it. German sociological history, Italian social history, Thompson/Hill/Hobsbawm style work, US "class-race-gender" stuff. Additionally there's a core trend in Australian history dictated by Marxism: knowable social being, social being as created, processes as teleologically self-determining even if history itself isn't teleological. Fifelfoo 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Types of histories
IN Das Kapital, what were the histories Marx used in contrast to materialist ones?

Overhaul
There is very little currently on this page of use, which is a shame because its an exceedingly important subject. A lot of work will have to be done.

NPOV
There clearly needs to be overhaul towards neutrality. This just criticizes the subject. Madhava 1947 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Dialectical vs. Determined
I would suggest that the explanation to the Dialectical vs. Determined schism, is a misunderstanding of Marxism, by the author of the above, and a lack of knowledge of especially the Hegelian influence, from where Marx stole the basis for his ideas.

History is dialectic, but it does move towards an end goal, via the dialectic workings of the "Weltgeist", the end goal in Hegel is the freedom of man, from oppression (Master/slave relation) and this freedom Marx sees as the freedom of the proletarian/working class. So in short the movements of the fabric of history moves dialectic towards this end goal, and thus it is both teleological and there for has a determination, but the move is dialectic.

Thus there is no reason to look for a place where “the working-class -will- do something”. The determination is Marx’s utopian proletarian society, which he sees as the end goal of the workings of history, after the decline of capitalism.

As to the relevance of Marxist historiography today, in the Anglo-Saxon world and the rest of Europe, a man like Eric Hobsbawm have had, and continues to have, an enormous impact in the academic world.

--Danelaw 75 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Expand instead of NPOV
The article is fairly neutral in terms of standard academic practice of history as it relates of marxist historiography. Probably more needs to be done on drawing out two other strands, the teleological theory of history, and particular works of history by marxists.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian History and Romila Thapar, Possible Example
Perhaps the editors would include the Marxist influence on modern Indian academia, education and historical research? 142.59.203.143 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Rajimsu123

Censorship of Arun Shourie
has been deleting the mention of Arun Shourie from this page. The first time, he deleted the content with a misleading edit summary (he gave no edit summary at all for the deletion). Other times he claimed it is not "balanced".

However, one single line does not change the balance of the article. This seems a clear case of Wikipedia is not censored.

FNAS, would it be better if instead of listing the book in the bibliography, the book would be cited in the article? Perhaps cite it for the fact that Marxist historiography has been criticized in India?


 * I'm not trying to censor anything. I just think it's out of place to put a polemic about a single political controversy in the Further reading section. I've moved it to the paragraph on India, per you suggestion. Tell me what you think. FNAS (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is fine, thanks. The book is an important and well known work about Marxist historians in India. Shourie is not a Hindu nationalist by the way, he is an agnostic who has criticized Hinduism as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.38.37 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with what IP has said and I have made edits accordingly. Capitals00 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop misrepresenting sources. The books you cited discuss debates, but what you pick from them are quoted polemical statements from one side of that debate. FNAS (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did correct representation of sources since we are only discussing the criticism from academic sources, they are not "polemical" statements. And compared to your edits are WP:OR, totally misrepresents sources. You didn't had to remove the sentences in first place. Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that the edits on this section were rather recent and undiscussed. Because of that I have modified the sentence where we are having the dispute. And also removed "Dalit movement" because source doesn't not support it, also according to the source, Ambedkar criticized Marxists for being "for being too distant and ignorant of the specificities of the caste issue", that is not correct representation.
 * I would also mention that you had changed "determinism" to "teleological", but there are no sources for "teleological" and article said determinism since many years. I have inserted it back with sources. Capitals00 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You were misrepresenting Guichard by citing her for a kind of analysis that she actually critically assesses, in its proper context of political struggles over historiography. My removal of an unsourced statement regarding "massive atrocities" was simply following the NPOV guideline.
 * The issue regarding determinism is more complicated due to there being many different strands of Marxist historiography. O'Rourke, for example, is really only discussing Marxism-Leninism. The same holds for Stunkel. I'll leave it as is until I find the time to write up something better. FNAS (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)