Marxism is a left-wing to far-left[1][2][3] method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict and a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, no single, definitive Marxist theory exists.[4]

In addition to the schools of thought which emphasize or modify elements of classical Marxism, various Marxian concepts have been incorporated and adapted into a diverse array of social theories leading to widely varying conclusions.[5] Alongside Marx's critique of political economy, the defining characteristics of Marxism have often been described using the terms dialectical materialism and historical materialism, though these terms were coined after Marx's death and their tenets have been challenged by some self-described Marxists.

Marxism has had a profound impact on global academia, having influenced many fields, including anthropology,[6][7] archaeology, art theory, criminology, cultural studies, economics, education,[8] ethics, film theory, geography,[9] historiography, literary criticism, media studies,[10][11] philosophy, political science, political economy, psychology, science studies,[12] sociology, urban planning, and theatre.


Marxism seeks to explain social phenomena within any given society by analysing the material conditions and economic activities required to fulfill human material needs. It assumes that the form of economic organisation, or mode of production, influences all other social phenomena, including broader social relations, political institutions, legal systems, cultural systems, aesthetics and ideologies. These social relations and the economic system form a base and superstructure. As forces of production (i.e. technology) improve, existing forms of organising production become obsolete and hinder further progress. Karl Marx wrote: "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution."[13]

These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society which are, in turn, fought out at the level of class struggle.[14] Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materialises between the minority who own the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services (the proletariat). Starting with the conjectural premise that social change occurs due to the struggle between different classes within society who contradict one another, a Marxist would conclude that capitalism exploits and oppresses the proletariat; therefore, capitalism will inevitably lead to a proletarian revolution. In a socialist society, private property—as the means of production—would be replaced by cooperative ownership. A socialist economy would not base production on the creation of private profits but on the criteria of satisfying human needs—that is, production for use. Friedrich Engels explained that "the capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer, and then the appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production—on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment."[15]

Marxian economics and its proponents view capitalism as economically unsustainable and incapable of improving the population's living standards due to its need to compensate for the falling rate of profit by cutting employees' wages and social benefits while pursuing military aggression. The socialist mode of production would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through revolution by workers. According to Marxian crisis theory, socialism is not an inevitability but an economic necessity.[16]


The term Marxism was popularised by Karl Kautsky, who considered himself an orthodox Marxist during the dispute between Marx's orthodox and revisionist followers.[17] Kautsky's revisionist rival Eduard Bernstein also later adopted the term.[17]

Engels did not support using Marxism to describe either Marx's or his views.[18] He claimed that the term was being abusively used as a rhetorical qualifier by those attempting to cast themselves as genuine followers of Marx while casting others in different terms, such as Lassallians.[18] In 1882, Engels claimed that Marx had criticised self-proclaimed Marxist Paul Lafargue by saying that if Lafargue's views were considered Marxist, then "one thing is certain and that is that I am not a Marxist."[18]

Historical materialism

The discovery of the materialist conception of history, or rather, the consistent continuation and extension of materialism into the domain of social phenomenon, removed two chief defects of earlier historical theories. In the first place, they at best examined only the ideological motives of the historical activity of human beings, without grasping the objective laws governing the development of the system of social relations. ... in the second place, the earlier theories did not cover the activities of the masses of the population, whereas historical materialism made it possible for the first time to study with scientific accuracy the social conditions of the life of the masses and the changes in these conditions.

— Russian Marxist theoretician and revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, 1913[19]

Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.

Marxism uses a materialist methodology, referred to by Marx and Engels as the materialist conception of history and later better known as historical materialism, to analyse the underlying causes of societal development and change from the perspective of the collective ways in which humans make their living.[21] Marx's account of the theory is in The German Ideology (1845)[22] and the preface A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859).[13] All constituent features of a society (social classes, political pyramid and ideologies) are assumed to stem from economic activity, forming what is considered the base and superstructure. The base and superstructure metaphor describes the totality of social relations by which humans produce and re-produce their social existence. According to Marx, the "sum total of the forces of production accessible to men determines the condition of society" and forms a society's economic base.[23]

The base includes the material forces of production such as the labour, means of production and relations of production, i.e. the social and political arrangements that regulate production and distribution. From this base rises a superstructure of legal and political "forms of social consciousness" that derive from the economic base that conditions both the superstructure and the dominant ideology of a society. Conflicts between the development of material productive forces and the relations of production provoke social revolutions, whereby changes to the economic base lead to the superstructure's social transformation.[13][24]

This relationship is reflexive in that the base initially gives rise to the superstructure and remains the foundation of a form of social organization. Those newly formed social organizations can then act again upon both parts of the base and superstructure so that rather than being static, the relationship is dialectic, expressed and driven by conflicts and contradictions. Engels clarified: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."[25]

Marx considered recurring class conflicts as the driving force of human history as such conflicts have manifested as distinct transitional stages of development in Western Europe. Accordingly, Marx designated human history as encompassing four stages of development in relations of production:

  1. Primitive communism: cooperative tribal societies.
  2. Slave society: development of tribal to city-state in which aristocracy is born.
  3. Feudalism: aristocrats are the ruling class, while merchants evolve into the bourgeoisie.
  4. Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class who create and employ the proletariat.

While historical materialism has been referred to as a materialist theory of history, Marx did not claim to have produced a master key to history and that the materialist conception of history is not "an historico-philosophic theory of the marche générale, imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself." In a letter to the editor of the Russian newspaper paper Otetchestvennye Zapiskym (1877),[26] he explained that his ideas were based upon a concrete study of the actual conditions in Europe.[27]

Criticism of capitalism

According to the Marxist theoretician and revolutionary socialist Vladimir Lenin, "the principal content of Marxism" was "Marx's economic doctrine."[28] Marx demonstrated how the capitalist bourgeoisie and their economists were promoting what he saw as the lie that "the interests of the capitalist and of the worker are ... one and the same." He believed that they did this by purporting the concept that "the fastest possible growth of productive capital" was best for wealthy capitalists and workers because it provided them with employment.[29]

Exploitation is a matter of surplus labour—the amount of labour performed beyond what is received in goods. Exploitation has been a socioeconomic feature of every class society and is one of the principal features distinguishing the social classes. The power of one social class to control the means of production enables its exploitation of other classes. Under capitalism, the labour theory of value is the operative concern, whereby the value of a commodity equals the socially necessary labour time required to produce it. Under such conditions, surplus value—the difference between the value produced and the value received by a labourer—is synonymous with surplus labour, and capitalist exploitation is thus realised as deriving surplus value from the worker.

In pre-capitalist economies, exploitation of the worker was achieved via physical coercion. Under the capitalist mode of production, those results are more subtly achieved because workers do not own the means of production and must "voluntarily" enter into an exploitative work relationship with a capitalist to earn the necessities of life. The worker's entry into such employment is voluntary because they choose which capitalist to work for. However, the worker must work or starve. Thus exploitation is inevitable, and the voluntary nature of a worker participating in a capitalist society is illusory; it is production, not circulation, that causes exploitation. Marx emphasised that capitalism per se does not cheat the worker.

Alienation (German: Entfremdung) is the estrangement of people from their humanity and a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and generate alienated labourers. In Marx's view, alienation is an objective characterization of the worker's situation in capitalism—his or her self-awareness of this condition is not prerequisite.[30]

In addition to criticism, Marx has also praised some of the results of capitalism stating that it "has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together"[31] and that it "has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal arrangements."[32]

Social classes

Marx distinguishes social classes based on two criteria, i.e. ownership of means of production and control over the labour power of others. Following this criterion of class based on property relations, Marx identified the social stratification of the capitalist mode of production with the following social groups:

  • Proletariat: "[T]he class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live."[33] The capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions that enable the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat as the worker's labour generates a surplus value greater than the worker's wage.
  • Bourgeoisie: those who "own the means of production" and buy labour power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat. They subdivide as bourgeoisie and the petite bourgeoisie.
  • Landlords: a historically significant social class that retains some wealth and power.
  • Peasantry and farmers: a scattered class incapable of organizing and effecting socioeconomic change, most of whom would enter the proletariat while some would become landlords.

Class consciousness denotes the awareness—of itself and the social world—that a social class possesses and its capacity to act rationally in its best interests. Class consciousness is required before a social class can effect a successful revolution and, thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Without defining ideology,[34] Marx used the term to describe the production of images of social reality. According to Engels, "ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces."[35]

Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society (i.e. the ruling social ideas) is determined by the best interests of the ruling class. In The German Ideology, Marx says that "[t]he ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is, at the same time, its ruling intellectual force."[36] The term political economy initially referred to the study of the material conditions of economic production in the capitalist system. In Marxism, political economy is the study of the means of production, specifically of capital and how that manifests as economic activity.

Marxism taught me what society was. I was like a blindfolded man in a forest, who doesn't even know where north or south is. If you don't eventually come to truly understand the history of the class struggle, or at least have a clear idea that society is divided between the rich and the poor, and that some people subjugate and exploit other people, you're lost in a forest, not knowing anything.

— Cuban revolutionary and Marxist–Leninist politician Fidel Castro on discovering Marxism, 2009[37]

This new way of thinking was invented because socialists believed that common ownership of the means of production (i.e. the industries, land, wealth of nature, trade apparatus and wealth of the society) would abolish the exploitative working conditions experienced under capitalism. Through working class revolution, the state (which Marxists saw as a weapon for the subjugation of one class by another) is seized and used to suppress the hitherto ruling class of capitalists and (by implementing a commonly owned, democratically controlled workplace) create the society of communism which Marxists see as true democracy. An economy based on cooperation on human need and social betterment, rather than competition for profit of many independently acting profit seekers, would also be the end of class society, which Marx saw as the fundamental division of all hitherto existing history.

Marx saw work, the effort by humans to transform the environment for their needs, as a fundamental feature of humankind. Capitalism, in which the product of the worker's labour is taken from them and sold at the market rather than being part of the worker's life, is therefore alienating to the worker. Additionally, the worker is compelled by various means (some nicer than others) to work harder, faster, and longer. While this is happening, the employer is constantly trying to save on labour costs by paying the workers less and figuring out how to use cheaper equipment. This allows the employer to extract the largest amount of work and, therefore, potential wealth from their workers. The fundamental nature of capitalist society is no different from that of a slave society in that one small group of society exploits the larger group.

Through common ownership of the means of production, the profit motive is eliminated, and the motive of furthering human flourishing is introduced. Because the surplus produced by the workers is the property of the society as a whole, there are no classes of producers and appropriators. Additionally, as the state originates in the bands of retainers hired by the first ruling classes to protect their economic privilege, it will wither away as its conditions of existence have disappeared.[38][39][40]

Communism, revolution and socialism

Left-wing protester wielding a red flag with a raised fist, both symbols of revolutionary socialism

According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death."[41]

According to orthodox Marxist theory, overthrowing capitalism by a socialist revolution in contemporary society is inevitable. While the inevitability of an eventual socialist revolution is a controversial debate among many different Marxist schools of thought, all Marxists believe socialism is a necessity. Marxists argue that a socialist society is far better for most of the populace than its capitalist counterpart. Prior to the Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin wrote: "The socialization of production is bound to lead to the conversion of the means of production into the property of society. ... This conversion will directly result in an immense increase in productivity of labour, a reduction of working hours, and the replacement of the remnants, the ruins of small-scale, primitive, disunited production by collective and improved labour."[42] The failure of the 1905 Russian Revolution, along with the failure of socialist movements to resist the outbreak of World War I, led to renewed theoretical effort and valuable contributions from Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg towards an appreciation of Marx's crisis theory and efforts to formulate a theory of imperialism.[43]

Schools of thought


Classical Marxism denotes the collection of socio-eco-political theories expounded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Ernest Mandel remarked, "Marxism is always open, always critical, always self-critical." Classical Marxism distinguishes Marxism as broadly perceived from "what Marx believed." In 1883, Marx wrote to his son-in-law Paul Lafargue and French labour leader Jules Guesde—both of whom claimed to represent Marxist principles—accusing them of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and denying the value of reformist struggle. From Marx's letter derives the paraphrase, "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist." Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and "of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, 'ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste' ('what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist')."[44][45]

American Marxist scholar Hal Draper responded: "There are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike."[46]


Libertarian Marxism emphasizes the anti-authoritarian and libertarian aspects of Marxism. Early currents of libertarian Marxism, such as left communism, emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism.[47]

Libertarian Marxism is often critical of reformist positions such as those held by social democrats.[48] Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France;[49] emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its destiny without the need for a vanguard party to mediate or aid its liberation.[50] Along with anarchism, libertarian Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism.[51]

Libertarian Marxism includes currents such as autonomism, council communism, De Leonism, Lettrism, parts of the New Left, Situationism, Freudo-Marxism (a form of psychoanalysis),[52] Socialisme ou Barbarie[53] and workerism.[54] Libertarian Marxism has often strongly influenced both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Maurice Brinton, Cornelius Castoriadis, Guy Debord, Raya Dunayevskaya, Daniel Guérin, C. L. R. James, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Negri, Anton Pannekoek, Fredy Perlman, Ernesto Screpanti, E. P. Thompson, Raoul Vaneigem, and Yanis Varoufakis,[55] the latter claiming that Marx himself was a libertarian Marxist.[56]


Marxist humanism was born in 1932 with the publication of Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and reached a degree of prominence in the 1950s and 1960s. Marxist humanists contend that there is continuity between the early philosophical writings of Marx, in which he develops his theory of alienation, and the structural description of capitalist society found in his later works, such as Capital.[57] They hold that grasping Marx's philosophical foundations is necessary to understand his later works properly.[58]

Contrary to the official dialectical materialism of the Soviet Union and interpretations of Marx rooted in the structural Marxism of Louis Althusser, Marxist humanists argue that Marx's work was an extension or transcendence of enlightenment humanism.[59] Whereas other Marxist philosophies see Marxism as natural science, Marxist humanism reaffirms the doctrine that "man is the measure of all things"—that humans are essentially different to the rest of the natural order and should be treated so by Marxist theory.[60]


V. Gordon Childe, an Australian archaeologist and one of the 20th century's most prominent Marxist academics

According to a 2007 survey of American professors by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, 17.6% of social science professors and 5.0% of humanities professors identify as Marxists, while between 0 and 2% of professors in all other disciplines identify as Marxists.[61]


The theoretical development of Marxist archaeology was first developed in the Soviet Union in 1929, when a young archaeologist named Vladislav I. Ravdonikas published a report entitled "For a Soviet history of material culture"; within this work, the very discipline of archaeology as it then stood was criticised as being inherently bourgeois, therefore anti-socialist and so, as a part of the academic reforms instituted in the Soviet Union under the administration of General Secretary Joseph Stalin, a great emphasis was placed on the adoption of Marxist archaeology throughout the country.[62]

These theoretical developments were subsequently adopted by archaeologists working in capitalist states outside of the Leninist bloc, most notably by the Australian academic V. Gordon Childe, who used Marxist theory in his understandings of the development of human society.[63]


Marxist sociology, as the study of sociology from a Marxist perspective,[64] is "a form of conflict theory associated with ... Marxism's objective of developing a positive (empirical) science of capitalist society as part of the mobilization of a revolutionary working class."[65] The American Sociological Association has a section dedicated to the issues of Marxist sociology that is "interested in examining how insights from Marxist methodology and Marxist analysis can help explain the complex dynamics of modern society."[66]

Influenced by the thought of Karl Marx, Marxist sociology emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As well as Marx, Max Weber and Émile Durkheim are considered seminal influences in early sociology. The first Marxist school of sociology was known as Austro-Marxism, of which Carl Grünberg and Antonio Labriola were among its most notable members. During the 1940s, the Western Marxist school became accepted within Western academia, subsequently fracturing into several different perspectives, such as the Frankfurt School or critical theory. Due to its former state-supported position, there has been a backlash against Marxist thought in post-communist states (see sociology in Poland). However, it remains dominant in the sociological research sanctioned and supported by communist states (see sociology in China).


Marxian economics is a school of economic thought tracing its foundations to the critique of classical political economy first expounded upon by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[4] Marxian economics concerns itself with the analysis of crisis in capitalism, the role and distribution of the surplus product and surplus value in various types of economic systems, the nature and origin of economic value, the impact of class and class struggle on economic and political processes, and the process of economic evolution. Although the Marxian school is considered heterodox, ideas that have come out of Marxian economics have contributed to mainstream understanding of the global economy. Certain concepts of Marxian economics, especially those related to capital accumulation and the business cycle, such as creative destruction, have been fitted for use in capitalist systems.


Marxist education develops Marx's works and those of the movements he influenced in various ways. In addition to the educational psychology of Lev Vygotsky[67] and the pedagogy of Paulo Freire, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis' Schooling in Capitalist America is a study of educational reform in the U.S. and its relationship to the reproduction of capitalism and the possibilities of utilizing its contradictions in the revolutionary movement. The work of Peter McLaren, especially since the turn of the 21st century, has further developed Marxist educational theory by developing revolutionary critical pedagogy,[68] as has the work of Glenn Rikowski,[69] Dave Hill,[70] and Paula Allman.[71] Other Marxists have analyzed the forms and pedagogical processes of capitalist and communist education, such as Tyson E. Lewis,[72] Noah De Lissovoy,[73] Gregory Bourassa,[74] and Derek R. Ford.[75] Curry Malott has developed a Marxist history of education in the U.S.,[76] and Marvin Gettleman examined the history of communist education.[77] Sandy Grande has synthesized Marxist educational theory with Indigenous pedagogy,[78] while others like John Holt analyze adult education from a Marxist perspective.[79]

Other developments include:

  • the educational aesthetics of Marxist education[80]
  • Marxist analyses of the role of fixed capital in capitalist education[81]
  • the educational psychology of capital[82]
  • the educational theory of Lenin[83][84]
  • the pedagogical function of the Communist Party[85][86]

The latest field of research examines and develops Marxist pedagogy in the postdigital era.[87][88][89]


Marxist historiography is a school of historiography influenced by Marxism, the chief tenets of which are the centrality of social class and economic constraints in determining historical outcomes. Marxist historiography has contributed to the history of the working class, oppressed nationalities, and the methodology of history from below. Friedrich Engels' most important historical contribution was Der deutsche Bauernkrieg about the German Peasants' War which analysed social warfare in early Protestant Germany regarding emerging capitalist classes. The German Peasants' War indicates the Marxist interest in history from below and class analysis and attempts a dialectical analysis.

Engels' short treatise The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 was salient in creating the socialist impetus in British politics. Marx's most important works on social and political history include The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, The Communist Manifesto, The German Ideology, and those chapters of Das Kapital dealing with the historical emergence of capitalists and proletarians from pre-industrial English society. Marxist historiography suffered in the Soviet Union as the government requested overdetermined historical writing. Notable histories include the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), published in the 1930s to justify the nature of Bolshevik party life under Joseph Stalin. A circle of historians inside the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) formed in 1946.

While some members of the group, most notably Christopher Hill and E. P. Thompson, left the CPGB after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the common points of British Marxist historiography continued in their works. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class is one of the works commonly associated with this group. Eric Hobsbawm's Bandits is another example of this group's work. C. L. R. James was also a great pioneer of the 'history from below' approach. Living in Britain when he wrote his most notable work, The Black Jacobins (1938), he was an anti-Stalinist Marxist and so outside of the CPGB. In India, B. N. Datta and D. D. Kosambi are the founding fathers of Marxist historiography. Today, the senior-most scholars of Marxist historiography are R. S. Sharma, Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, D. N. Jha, and K. N. Panikkar, most of whom are now over 75 years old.[90]

Literary criticism

Marxist literary criticism is a loose term describing literary criticism based on socialist and dialectic theories. Marxist criticism views literary works as reflections of the social institutions from which they originate. According to Marxists, even literature is a social institution with a specific ideological function based on the background and ideology of the author. Marxist literary critics include Mikhail Bakhtin, Walter Benjamin, Terry Eagleton, and Fredric Jameson.


Marxist aesthetics is a theory of aesthetics based on or derived from the theories of Karl Marx. It involves a dialectical and materialist, or dialectical materialist, approach to the application of Marxism to the cultural sphere, specifically areas related to taste, such as art and beauty, among others. Marxists believe that economic and social conditions, and especially the class relations that derive from them affect every aspect of an individual's life, from religious beliefs to legal systems to cultural frameworks. Some notable Marxist aestheticians include Anatoly Lunacharsky, Mikhail Lifshitz, William Morris, Theodor W. Adorno, Bertolt Brecht, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukács, Ernst Fischer, Louis Althusser, Jacques Rancière, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Raymond Williams.


Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Marx addressed the alienation and exploitation of the working class, the capitalist mode of production and historical materialism. He is famous for analysing history in terms of class struggle, summarised in the initial line introducing The Communist Manifesto (1848): "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."[91]

Together with Marx, Engels co-developed communist theory. Marx and Engels first met in September 1844. Discovering that they had similar views of philosophy and socialism, they collaborated and wrote works such as Die heilige Familie (The Holy Family). After Marx was deported from France in January 1845, they moved to Belgium, which permitted greater freedom of expression than other European countries. In January 1846, they returned to Brussels to establish the Communist Correspondence Committee.

In 1847, they began writing The Communist Manifesto (1848), based on Engels' The Principles of Communism. Six weeks later, they published the 12,000-word pamphlet in February 1848. In March, Belgium expelled them, and they moved to Cologne, where they published the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, a politically radical newspaper. By 1849, they had to leave Cologne for London. The Prussian authorities pressured the British government to expel Marx and Engels, but Prime Minister Lord John Russell refused.

After Marx died in 1883, Engels became the editor and translator of Marx's writings. With his Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884)—analysing monogamous marriage as guaranteeing male social domination of women, a concept analogous, in communist theory, to the capitalist class's economic domination of the working class—Engels made intellectually significant contributions to feminist theory and Marxist feminism.

Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union

With the October Revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks took power from the Russian Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks established the first socialist state based on the ideas of soviet democracy and Leninism. Their newly formed federal state promised to end Russian involvement in World War I and establish a revolutionary worker's state. Following the October Revolution, the Soviet government struggled with the White Movement and several independence movements in the Russian Civil War. This period is marked by the establishment of many socialist policies and the development of new socialist ideas, mainly in the form of Marxism–Leninism.

In 1919, the nascent Soviet Government established the Communist Academy and the Marx–Engels–Lenin Institute for doctrinal Marxist study and to publish official ideological and research documents for the Russian Communist Party. With Lenin's death in 1924, there was an internal struggle in the Soviet Communist movement, mainly between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, in the form of the Right Opposition and Left Opposition, respectively. These struggles were based on both sides' different interpretations of Marxist and Leninist theory based on the situation of the Soviet Union at the time.[92][93]

Chinese Revolution

The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should regard it not as a dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution. It is not just a matter of understanding the general laws derived by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin from their extensive study of real life and revolutionary experience, but of studying their standpoint and method in examining and solving problems.

Mao Zedong, Little Red Book[94]

At the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War and, more widely, World War II, the Chinese Communist Revolution occurred within the context of the Chinese Civil War. The Chinese Communist Party, founded in 1921, conflicted with the Kuomintang over the country's future. Throughout the Civil War, Mao Zedong developed a theory of Marxism for the Chinese historical context. Mao found a large base of support in the peasantry as opposed to the Russian Revolution, which found its primary support in the urban centres of the Russian Empire. Some significant ideas contributed by Mao were the ideas of New Democracy, mass line and people's war. The People's Republic of China (PRC) was declared in 1949. The new socialist state was to be founded on the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.[95][96]

From Stalin's death until the late 1960s, there was an increasing conflict between China and the Soviet Union. De-Stalinization, which first began under Nikita Khrushchev, and the policy of detente, were seen as revisionist and insufficiently Marxist. This ideological confrontation spilt into a broader global crisis centred around which nation was to lead the international socialist movement.[97]

Following Mao's death and the ascendancy of Deng Xiaoping, Maoism and official Marxism in China were reworked. This new model was a newer dynamic form of Marxism–Leninism and Maoism in China. Commonly referred to as socialism with Chinese Characteristics, this new path was centred around Deng's Four Cardinal Principles, which sought to uphold the central role of the Chinese Communist Party and uphold the principle that China was in the primary stage of socialism and that it was still working to build a communist society based on Marxist principles.[98][99]

Late 20th century

In 1959, the Cuban Revolution led to the victory of Fidel Castro and his July 26 Movement. Although the revolution was not explicitly socialist, upon victory, Castro ascended to the position of prime minister and adopted the Leninist model of socialist development, allying with the Soviet Union.[100][101] One of the leaders of the revolution, the Argentine Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, subsequently went on to aid revolutionary socialist movements in Congo-Kinshasa and Bolivia, eventually being killed by the Bolivian government, possibly on the orders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), although the CIA agent sent to search for Guevara, Felix Rodriguez, expressed a desire to keep him alive as a possible bargaining tool with the Cuban government. He posthumously went on to become an internationally recognised icon.

In the People's Republic of China, the Maoist government undertook the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 to purge Chinese society of capitalist elements and achieve socialism. Upon Mao Zedong's death, his rivals seized political power, and under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, many of Mao's Cultural Revolution era policies were revised or abandoned, and much of the state sector was privatised.

The late 1980s and early 1990s saw the collapse of most of those socialist states that had professed a Marxist–Leninist ideology. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the emergence of the New Right and neoliberal capitalism as the dominant ideological trends in Western politics championed by United States president Ronald Reagan and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher led the West to take a more aggressive stance towards the Soviet Union and its Leninist allies. Meanwhile, the reformist Mikhael Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985 and sought to abandon Leninist development models toward social democracy. Ultimately, Gorbachev's reforms, coupled with rising levels of popular ethnic nationalism, led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in late 1991 into a series of constituent nations, all of which abandoned Marxist–Leninist models for socialism, with most converting to capitalist economies.[102][103]

21st century

Hugo Chavez casting a vote in 2007

At the turn of the 21st century, China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam remained the only officially Marxist–Leninist states remaining, although a Maoist government led by Prachanda was elected into power in Nepal in 2008 following a long guerrilla struggle.[104][105]

The early 21st century also saw the election of socialist governments in several Latin American nations, in what has come to be known as the "pink tide"; dominated by the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez; this trend also saw the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Forging political and economic alliances through international organisations like the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, these socialist governments allied themselves with Marxist–Leninist Cuba. Although none espoused a Stalinist path directly, most admitted to being significantly influenced by Marxist theory. Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez declared himself a Trotskyist during the swearing-in of his cabinet two days before his inauguration on 10 January 2007.[106] Venezuelan Trotskyist organizations do not regard Chávez as a Trotskyist, with some describing him as a bourgeois nationalist,[107] while others consider him an honest revolutionary leader who made significant mistakes due to him lacking a Marxist analysis.[108]

For Italian Marxist Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala in their 2011 book Hermeneutic Communism, "this new weak communism differs substantially from its previous Soviet (and current Chinese) realization, because the South American countries follow democratic electoral procedures and also manage to decentralize the state bureaucratic system through the Bolivarian missions. In sum, if weakened communism is felt as a specter in the West, it is not only because of media distortions but also for the alternative it represents through the same democratic procedures that the West constantly professes to cherish but is hesitant to apply."[109]

Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping has announced a deepening commitment of the Chinese Communist Party to the ideas of Marx. At an event celebrating the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth, Xi said, "We must win the advantages, win the initiative, and win the future. We must continuously improve the ability to use Marxism to analyse and solve practical problems", adding that Marxism is a "powerful ideological weapon for us to understand the world, grasp the law, seek the truth, and change the world." Xi has further stressed the importance of examining and continuing the tradition of the CPC and embracing its revolutionary past.[110][111][112]

The fidelity of those varied revolutionaries, leaders and parties to the work of Karl Marx is highly contested and has been rejected by many Marxists and other socialists alike.[113][114] Socialists in general and socialist writers, including Dimitri Volkogonov, acknowledge that the actions of authoritarian socialist leaders have damaged "the enormous appeal of socialism generated by the October Revolution."[115]


Criticism of Marxism has come from various political ideologies and academic disciplines.[116][117] This includes general criticism about lack of internal consistency, criticisms related to historical materialism, that it is a type of historical determinism, the necessity of suppression of individual rights, issues with the implementation of communism and economic issues such as the distortion or absence of price signals and reduced incentives. In addition, empirical and epistemological problems are frequently identified.[118][119][120]

Some Marxists have criticised the academic institutionalisation of Marxism for being too shallow and detached from political action. Zimbabwean Trotskyist Alex Callinicos, himself a professional academic, stated: "Its practitioners remind one of Narcissus, who in the Greek legend fell in love with his own reflection. ... Sometimes it is necessary to devote time to clarifying and developing the concepts that we use, but indeed for Western Marxists this has become an end in itself. The result is a body of writings incomprehensible to all but a tiny minority of highly qualified scholars."[121]

Additionally, some intellectual critiques of Marxism contest certain assumptions prevalent in Marx's thought and Marxism after him without rejecting Marxist politics.[122] Other contemporary supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable but that the corpus is incomplete or outdated regarding certain aspects of economic, political or social theory. They may combine some Marxist concepts with the ideas of other theorists such as Max Weber—the Frankfurt School is one example.[123][124]


Philosopher and historian of ideas Leszek Kołakowski pointed out that "Marx's theory is incomplete or ambiguous in many places, and could be 'applied' in many contradictory ways without manifestly infringing its principles." Specifically, he considers "the laws of dialectics" as fundamentally erroneous, stating that some are "truisms with no specific Marxist content", others "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means", and some just "nonsense"; he believes that some Marxist laws can be interpreted differently, but that these interpretations still in general fall into one of the two categories of error.[125]

Okishio's theorem shows that if capitalists use cost-cutting techniques and real wages do not increase, the rate of profit must rise, which casts doubt on Marx's view that the rate of profit would tend to fall.[126]

The allegations of inconsistency have been a large part of Marxian economics and the debates around it since the 1970s.[127] Andrew Kliman argues that this undermines Marx's critiques and the correction of the alleged inconsistencies because internally inconsistent theories cannot be correct by definition.[128]

Epistemological and empirical

Critics of Marxism claim that Marx's predictions have failed, with some pointing towards the GDP per capita generally increasing in capitalist economies compared to less market-oriented economics, the capitalist economies not suffering worsening economic crises leading to the overthrow of the capitalist system and communist revolutions not occurring in the most advanced capitalist nations, but instead in undeveloped regions.[129][130] It has also been criticized for allegedly resulting in lower living standards in relation to capitalist countries, a claim that has been disputed.[131]

In his books, The Poverty of Historicism and Conjectures and Refutations, philosopher of science Karl Popper criticized the explanatory power and validity of historical materialism.[132] Popper believed that Marxism had been initially scientific in that Marx had postulated a genuinely predictive theory. When these predictions were not borne out, Popper argues that the theory avoided falsification by adding ad hoc hypotheses that made it compatible with the facts. Because of this, Popper asserted, a theory that was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudoscientific dogma.[133]


Democratic socialists and social democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only through extra-legal class conflict and a proletarian revolution. The relationship between Marx and other socialist thinkers and organizations—rooted in Marxism's "scientific" and anti-utopian socialism, among other factors—has divided Marxists from other socialists since Marx's life.

After Marx's death and the emergence of Marxism, there have also been dissensions within Marxism itself—a notable example is the splitting of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Orthodox Marxists opposed a less dogmatic, more innovative, or even revisionist Marxism.

Anarchist and libertarian

Anarchism has had a strained relationship with Marxism. Anarchists and many non-Marxist libertarian socialists reject the need for a transitory state phase, claiming that socialism can only be established through decentralized, non-coercive organization. Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin criticized Marx for his authoritarian bent.[134] The phrases "barracks socialism" or "barracks communism" became shorthand for this critique, evoking the image of citizens' lives being as regimented as the lives of conscripts in barracks.[135]


Other critiques come from an economic standpoint. Vladimir Karpovich Dmitriev writing in 1898,[136] Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz writing in 1906–1907,[137] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that do not follow his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are corrected, his conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by and equal to the aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds. This result calls into question his theory that exploiting workers is the sole source of profit.[138]

Marxism and socialism have received considerable critical analysis from multiple generations of Austrian economists regarding scientific methodology, economic theory and political implications.[139][140] During the marginal revolution, subjective value theory was rediscovered by Carl Menger, a development that fundamentally undermined the British cost theories of value. The restoration of subjectivism and praxeological methodology previously used by classical economists including Richard Cantillon, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say and Frédéric Bastiat led Menger to criticise historicist methodology in general. Second-generation Austrian economist Eugen Böhm von Bawerk used praxeological and subjectivist methodology to fundamentally attack the law of value. Gottfried Haberler has regarded his criticism as "definitive", arguing that Böhm-Bawerk's critique of Marx's economics was so "thorough and devastating" that he believes that as of the 1960s, no Marxian scholar had conclusively refuted it.[141] Third-generation Austrian Ludwig von Mises rekindled the debate about the economic calculation problem by arguing that without price signals in capital goods, in his opinion, all other aspects of the market economy are irrational. This led him to declare that "rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."[142]

Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue that Marx's economic theory was fundamentally flawed because it attempted to simplify the economy into a few general laws that ignored the impact of institutions on the economy.[143]

See also



  1. "Left-wing / Right-wing". Retrieved 16 July 2022.
  2. "Radical left". Retrieved 16 July 2022. Radical left is a term that refers collectively to people who hold left-wing political views that are considered extreme, such as supporting or working to establish communism, Marxism, Maoism, socialism, anarchism, or other forms of anticapitalism. The radical left is sometimes called the far left.
  3. March, Luke (2009). "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe: From Marxism to the Mainstream?" (PDF). IPG. 1: 126–143 via Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
  4. Wolff, Richard; Resnick, Stephen (1987). Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0801834806. The German Marxists extended the theory to groups and issues Marx had barely touched. Marxian analyses of the legal system, of the social role of women, of foreign trade, of international rivalries among capitalist nations, and the role of parliamentary democracy in the transition to socialism drew animated debates ... Marxian theory (singular) gave way to Marxian theories (plural).
  5. O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 107. ISBN 978-0415241878. Marxist political economists differ over their definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism. These differences are so fundamental, the arguments among differently persuaded Marxist political economists have sometimes been as intense as their oppositions to political economies that celebrate capitalism.
  6. O'Laughlin, B (October 1975). "Marxist Approaches in Anthropology". Annual Review of Anthropology. 4 (1): 341–370. doi:10.1146/ S2CID 2730688.
  7. Roseberry, William (21 October 1997). "Marx and Anthropology". Annual Review of Anthropology. 26 (1): 25–46. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.25.
  8. Malott, Curry; Ford, Derek (2015). Marx, capital, and education: towards a critical pedagogy of becoming. ISBN 978-1-4539-1602-5. OCLC 913956545.
  9. Mitchell, Don (2020). Mean streets: homelessness, public space, and the limits of capital. ISBN 978-0-8203-5691-4. OCLC 1151767935.
  10. Becker, Samuel L. (18 May 2009). "Marxist approaches to media studies: The British experience". Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 1 (1): 66–80. doi:10.1080/15295038409360014.
  11. Alvarado, Manuel; Gutch, Robin; Wollen, Tana (1987). Learning the Media: Introduction to Media Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 62, 76.
  12. Sheehan, Helena (July 2007). "Marxism and Science Studies: A Sweep through the Decades". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 21 (2): 197–210. doi:10.1080/02698590701498126. S2CID 143737257. Archived from the original on 24 February 2021. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  13. Marx, Karl (1859). "Introduction". A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
  14. Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). "Marx's Theory of Change". Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. South-Western College Publishing. p. 62. ISBN 0618261818.
  15. Engels, Friedrich (1882). "three". Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
  16. Marx, Karl (1852). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Men make their own history.
  17. Haupt 2010, p. 18–19.
  18. Haupt 2010, p. 12.
  19. Lenin 1967, p. 15.
  20. Marx, Karl (1993) [1858]. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. Translated by Nicolaus, M. Penguin Classics. p. 265. ISBN 0140445757.
  21. Evans 1975, p. 53.
  22. Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich (1932) [1845]. "The German Ideology". Marx/Engels Collected Works. Vol. 5. Moscow: Progress Publisher. Archived from the original on 29 September 2020. Retrieved 11 July 2020 via Marxists Internet Archive.
  23. Chambre, Henri; McLellan, David T., eds. (2020) [1998]. "Historical materialism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 6 July 2020. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  24. Engels, Friedrich (1947) [1877]. "Introduction". Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  25. Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich (1888) [1847]. "Bourgeoisie and Proletariat". In Engels, Friedrich (ed.). The Communist Manifesto. Archived from the original on 13 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  26. Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich (1968) [1877]. "Letter from Marx to Editor of the Otecestvenniye Zapisky". Marx and Engels Correspondence. New York: International Publishers. Archived from the original on 29 September 2020. Retrieved 11 July 2020 via Marxists Internet Archive.
  27. Wittfogel, Karl A. (July 1960). "The Marxist View of Russian Society and Revolution". World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 12 (4): 487–508. doi:10.2307/2009334. JSTOR 2009334. S2CID 155515389. Quote at p. 493.
  28. Lenin 1967, p. 7.
  29. Marx 1849.
  30. "Alienation". A Dictionary of Sociology.
  31. "Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)". Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  32. "Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)". Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  33. Engels, Friedrich (1888). Manifesto of the Communist Party. London. pp. Footnote. Archived from the original on 27 January 2018. Retrieved 15 March 2015.
  34. McCarney, Joseph. 2005. "Ideology and False Consciousness." Ch. 16 in Marx Myths and Legends, edited by R. Lucas and A. Blunden. Archived from the original on 9 May 2013.
  35. Engels, Friedrich. [14 July 1893] 1968. "Letter to Franz Mehring" Archived 22 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Marx and Engels Correspondence, translated by D. Torr. London: International Publishers.
  36. Marx, Karl (1845). The German Ideology. Archived from the original on 2 January 2015. Retrieved 24 April 2022 via
  37. Castro & Ramonet 2009, p. 100.
  38. Engels, Friedrich. "Origins of the Family- Chapter IX". Archived from the original on 22 October 2012. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  39. Zhao, Jianmin; Dickson, Bruce J. (2001). Remaking the Chinese State: Strategies, Society, and Security. Taylor & Francis Group. p. 2. ISBN 978-0415255837. Archived from the original on 6 June 2013. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  40. Kurian, George Thomas. 2011. "Withering Away of the State." P. 1776 in The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Washington, DC: CQ Press. doi:10.4135/9781608712434.n1646.
  41. Hudis, Peter; Vidal, Matt, Smith, Tony; Rotta, Tomás; Prew, Paul, eds. (September 2018 – June 2019). The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx Archived 5 January 2022 at the Wayback Machine. "Marx's Concept of Socialism" Archived 1 April 2022 at the Wayback Machine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0190695545. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.001.0001.
  42. Lenin 1967, pp. 35–36.
  43. Kuruma, Samezo (1929). Translated by Schauerte, M. "An Introduction to the Theory of Crisis". Journal of the Ohara Institute for Social Research. 4 (1). Archived from the original on 31 March 2020.
  44. Marx, Karl; Guesde, Jules (1880). The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier. Archived from the original on 1 July 2020. Retrieved 11 July 2020 via Marxists Internet Archive.
  45. Hall, Stuart; Morely, Dave; Chen, Kuan-Hsing (1996). Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. p. 418. ISBN 978-0415088039. Archived from the original on 19 March 2022. Retrieved 4 March 2013. I have no hesitation in saying that this represents a gigantic crudification and simplification of Marx's work—the kind of simplification and reductionism which once led him, in despair, to say "if that is marxism, then I am not a marxist.
  46. Not found in search function at Draper Arkiv Archived 19 March 2022 at the Wayback Machine.
  47. Gorter, Hermann; Pannekoek, Antonie; Pankhurst, Sylvia; Rühle, Otto (2007). Non-Leninist Marxism: Writings on the Workers Councils. St. Petersburg, Florida: Red and Black Publishers. ISBN 978-0979181368.
  48. "The Retreat of Social Democracy ... Re-imposition of Work in Britain and the 'Social Europe'". Aufheben. No. 8. 1999. Archived from the original on 5 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  49. Screpanti, Ernesto (2007). Libertarian communism: Marx Engels and the Political Economy of Freedom. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0230018969.
  50. Draper, Hal (1971). "The Principle of Self-Emancipation in Marx and Engels". The Socialist Register. 8 (8): 81–104. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
  51. Chomsky, Noam, Government In The Future (Lecture), Poetry Center of the New York YM-YWHA, archived from the original on 16 January 2013
  52. Martin, Jim. Orgone Addicts: Wilhelm Reich Versus The Situationists. Archived from the original on 8 March 2010. Retrieved 24 April 2022. I will also discuss other left-libertarians who wrote about Reich, as they bear on the general discussion of Reich's ideas...In 1944, Paul Goodman, author of Growing Up Absurd, The Empire City, and co-author of Gestalt Therapy, began to discover the work of Wilhelm Reich for his American audience in the tiny libertarian socialist and anarchist milieu.
  53. Howard, Dick (1975). "Introduction to Castoriadis". Telos (23): 118.
  54. "A libertarian Marxist tendency map". Archived from the original on 10 November 2021. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
  55. Varoufakis, Yanis. "Yanis Varoufakis thinks we need a radically new way of thinking about the economy, finance and capitalism". TED. Archived from the original on 2 April 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2019. Yanis Varoufakis describes himself as a "libertarian Marxist
  56. Lowry, Ben (11 March 2017). "Yanis Varoufakis: We leftists are not necessarily pro public sector – Marx was anti state". The NewsLetter. Archived from the original on 2 April 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
  57. Fromm 1966, pp. 69–79; Petrović 1967, pp. 35–51.
  58. Marcuse 1972, pp. 1–48.
  59. Spencer, Robert (17 February 2017). "Why We Need Marxist-Humanism Now". London: Pluto Press. Archived from the original on 28 April 2020. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
  60. Edgley 1991, p. 420.
  61. Gross, Neil; Simmons, Solon (2014). "The Social and Political Views of American College and University Professors". In Gross, Neil; Simmons, Solon (eds.). Professors and Their Politics. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1353/book.31449. ISBN 978-1421413358. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  62. Trigger 2007, pp. 326–340.
  63. Green 1981, p. 79.
  64. Johnson, Allan G. (2000). The Blackwell dictionary of sociology: a user's guide to sociological language. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 183–184. ISBN 0631216812.
  65. "Marxist Sociology". Encyclopedia of Sociology. Macmillan Reference. 2006. Archived from the original on 4 September 2019. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  66. "About the Section on Marxist Sociology". Archived from the original on 9 January 2009.
  67. Malott, Curry (16 July 2021). "Vygotsky's revolutionary educational psychology". Monthly Review Online. Archived from the original on 29 July 2021. Retrieved 29 July 2021.
  68. McLaren, Peter; Pruyn, Marc; Huerta-Charles, Luis (2016). This fist called my heart. ISBN 978-1-68123-454-0. OCLC 945552771.
  69. Rikowski, Glenn (December 1997). "Scorched Earth: prelude to rebuilding Marxist educational theory". British Journal of Sociology of Education. 18 (4): 551–574. doi:10.1080/0142569970180405.
  70. Rasinski, Lotar; Hill, Dave; Skordoulis, Kostas (2019). Marxism and education: international perspectives on theory and action. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-89169-5. OCLC 1129932782.
  71. Allman, Paula (2007). On Marx: an introduction to the revolutionary intellect of Karl Marx. Sense. ISBN 978-90-8790-192-9. OCLC 191900765.
  72. Lewis, Tyson E. (January 2012). "Mapping the Constellation of Educational Marxism(s)". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 44 (sup1): 98–114. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00563.x. S2CID 144595936.
  73. De Lissovoy, Noah (January 2011). "Pedagogy in Common: Democratic education in the global era". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 43 (10): 1119–1134. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00630.x. S2CID 219539909.
  74. Bourassa, Gregory N. (June 2019). "An Autonomist Biopolitics of Education: Reproduction, Resistance, and the Specter of Constituent Bíos". Educational Theory. 69 (3): 305–325. doi:10.1111/edth.12370. S2CID 212828309.
  75. Ford, Derek (2016). Communist study: education for the commons. ISBN 978-1-4985-3245-7. OCLC 957740361.
  76. Malott, Curry (2020). History of education for the many: from colonization and slavery to the decline of U.S. imperialism. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-350-08571-8. OCLC 1100627401.
  77. Gettleman, Marvin (January 1999). "Explorations in the History of Left Education in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Europe". Paedagogica Historica. 35 (1): 11–14. doi:10.1080/0030923990350101.
  78. Grande, Sandy (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7425-1828-5. OCLC 54424848.
  79. Holst, John D (2002). Social movements, civil society, and radical adult education. Bergin & Garvey. ISBN 978-0-89789-811-9. OCLC 47142191.
  80. Ford, Derek R.; Lewis, Tyson E. (1 March 2018). "On the Freedom to Be Opaque Monsters". Cultural Politics. 14 (1): 95–108. doi:10.1215/17432197-4312940.
  81. Ford, Derek R. (August 2014). "Spatializing Marxist Educational Theory: School, the Built Environment, Fixed Capital and (Relational) Space". Policy Futures in Education. 12 (6): 784–793. doi:10.2304/pfie.2014.12.6.784. S2CID 147636876.
  82. Rikowski, Glenn (2020). Stanković, Vesna; Matić, Pejnović (eds.). The psychology of capital. New Understanding of Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belgrade: Institute for Political Studies. pp. 9–31. ISBN 978-8674193303.
  83. FitzSimmons, Robert; Suoranta, Juha (2020). "Lenin on Learning and the Development of Revolutionary Consciousness". Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies. 18 (1): 34–62. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  84. Malott, Curry (2017). "Right-to-Work and Lenin's Communist Pedagogy: An Introduction". Texas Education Review. 3 (2). doi:10.15781/T2ZW18X7W. hdl:2152/45917.
  85. Boughton, Bob (June 2013). "Popular education and the 'party line'". Globalisation, Societies and Education. 11 (2): 239–257. doi:10.1080/14767724.2013.782189. S2CID 143914501.
  86. Ford, Derek R. (16 April 2017). "Studying like a communist: Affect, the Party, and the educational limits to capitalism". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 49 (5): 452–461. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1237347. S2CID 151616793.
  87. Ford, Derek R.; Jandrić, Petar (19 May 2021). "Postdigital Marxism and education". Educational Philosophy and Theory: 1–7. doi:10.1080/00131857.2021.1930530. S2CID 236356457.
  88. Carmichael, Patrick (April 2020). "Postdigital Possibilities: Operaismo, Co-research, and Educational Inquiry". Postdigital Science and Education. 2 (2): 380–396. doi:10.1007/s42438-019-00089-0. S2CID 214035791.
  89. Ford, Derek R. (October 2021). "Pedagogically Reclaiming Marx's Politics in the Postdigital Age: Social Formations and Althuserrian Pedagogical Gestures". Postdigital Science and Education. 3 (3): 851–869. doi:10.1007/s42438-021-00238-4. S2CID 237850324.
  90. Bottomore, Thomas, ed. (1991). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 54. ISBN 978-0631180821.
  91. Marx, Karl (1848). "1". The Communist Manifesto. London: Marxists Internet Archive. Archived from the original on 27 January 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2019.
  92. Staff (2020) [2009]. "Russian Revolution". A&E Television Networks. Archived from the original on 8 July 2020. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  93. McMeekin, Sean (2017). The Russian Revolution: A New History. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465039906.
  94. "Quotes from Mao Tse Tung". Marxists Internet Archive. Archived from the original on 19 March 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  95. Franke, Wolfgang, A Century of Chinese Revolution, 1851–1949 (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1970).
  96. Ellison, Herbert J., ed. The Sino-Soviet Conflict: A Global Perspective (1982) online Archived 3 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine
  97. Mao, Zedong (July 1964). "1964: On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World". Marxists Internet Archive. Archived from the original on 30 May 2020. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  98. Schram, Stuart (1989). The Thought of Mao Tse-Tung. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521310628.
  99. "Uphold the Four Cardinal Principles". Archived from the original on 27 August 2019. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
  100. Bourne 1986.
  101. Coltman 2003.
  102. "Collection: Cuban revolution collection | Archives at Yale". Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  103. D'Encausse, Helene Carrere. 1993. "The End of the Soviet Empire: The Triumph of the Nations," translated by F. Philip. New York: The New Republic. ISBN 978-0465098125. p. 16.
  104. "List Of Communist Countries Today". WorldAtlas. 30 November 2018. Archived from the original on 2 May 2021. Retrieved 2 May 2021.
  105. "New Maoist-led government installed in Nepal". World Socialist Web Site. Archived from the original on 2 May 2021. Retrieved 2 May 2021.
  106. Malinarich, Nathalie. "Chavez accelerates on path to socialism". BBC News. Archived from the original on 12 September 2017. Retrieved 19 June 2007.
  107. "Declaración Polãtica de la JIR, como Fracción Pública del PRS, por una real independencia de clase (Extractos) – Juventud de Izquierda Revolucionaria" [Political Declaration of the JIR, as a Public Fraction of the PRS, for a real class independence (Excerpts) – Revolutionary Left Youth] (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 10 October 2007. Retrieved 26 July 2013.
  108. Sanabria, William. "La Enmienda Constitucional, Orlando Chirino y la C-CURA" [The Constitutional Amendment, Orlando Chirino and the C-CURA] (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 18 December 2009.
  109. Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala. Hermeneutic Communism: From Heidegger to Marx Columbia University Press. 2011. p. 122
  110. Shepherd, Christian (4 May 2018). "No regrets: Xi says Marxism still 'totally correct' for China". Reuters. Archived from the original on 20 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  111. Jiang, Steven (18 May 2018). "At the height of his power, China's Xi Jinping moves to embrace Marxism". CNN. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  112. "China's huge celebrations of Karl Marx are not really about Marxism". 4 May 2018. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  113. Phillips, Ben (1981). "USSR: Capitalist or Socialist?". The Call. 10 (8). Archived from the original on 29 June 2015. Retrieved 16 July 2020 via Marxists Internet Archive.
  114. Garner, Dwight (18 August 2009). "Fox Hunter, Party Animal, Leftist Warrior". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 July 2020. Retrieved 31 August 2020.
  115. Volkogonov, Dimitri (1991). Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. Translated by Shukman, Harold. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 173. ISBN 978-0297810803.
  116. Kirby, Mark (2000). Sociology in Perspective. Heinemann. p. 273. ISBN 978-0435331603.
  117. Ollman, Bertell (1957). Criticisms of Marxism 1880–1930. University of Wisconsin–Madison. pp. 1, 6.
  118. Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (1992). A History of Marxian Economics. Vol. II, 1929–1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  119. Popper, Karl (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-0415285940.
  120. Keynes, John Maynard (1991). Essays in Persuasion. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 300. ISBN 978-0393001907.
  121. Callinicos 2010, p. 12.
  122. Baudrillard, Jean (1975) [1973]. The Mirror of Production. Translated by Mark Poster. New York: Telos Press. ISBN 978-0914386063.
  123. Held, David (October 1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. University of California Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780520041752.
  124. Jameson, Fredric (2002). "The Theoretical Hesitation: Benjamin's Sociological Predecessor". In Nealon, Jeffrey T.; Irr, Caren (eds.). Rethinking the Frankfurt School: Alternative Legacies of Cultural Critique. SUNY Press. pp. 11–30. ISBN 978-0791454923. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  125. Kołakowski, Leszek (2005). Main Currents of Marxism. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. pp. 662, 909. ISBN 978-0393329438.
  126. Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (1992). "7". A History of Marxian Economics. Vol. II, 1929–1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. §§II–IV.
  127. Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (1992). "7". A History of Marxian Economics. Vol. 1929–1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  128. Kliman states that "Marx's value theory would be necessarily wrong if it were internally inconsistent. Internally inconsistent theories may be appealing, intuitively plausible and even obvious, and consistent with all available empirical evidence—but they cannot be right. It is necessary to reject them or correct them. Thus the alleged proofs of inconsistency trump all other considerations, disqualifying Marx's theory at the starting gate. By doing so, they provide the principal justification for the suppression of this theory as well as the suppression of, and the denial of resources needed to carry out, present-day research based upon it. This greatly inhibits its further development. So does the very charge of inconsistency. What person of intellectual integrity would want to join a research program founded on (what he believes to be) a theory that is internally inconsistent and therefore false?" (Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007, p. 3, emphasis in original). However, in his book, Kliman presents an interpretation where these inconsistencies can be eliminated. The connection between the inconsistency allegations and the lack of study of Marx's theories was argued further by John Cassidy ("The Return of Karl Marx," The New Yorker, 20 & 27 Oct. 1997, p. 252): "His mathematical model of the economy, which depended on the idea that labor is the source of all value, was riven with internal inconsistencies and is rarely studied these days."
  129. Kliman, Andrew. Reclaiming Marx's "Capital". Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. p. 208.
  130. "GDP per capita growth (annual %)". World Bank. 2016. Archived from the original on 15 May 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016.
  131. Cereseto, S; Waitzkin, H (June 1986). "Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life". American Journal of Public Health. 76 (6): 661–666. doi:10.2105/ajph.76.6.661. PMC 1646771. PMID 3706593.
  132. Popper, Karl (1963). "Science as Falsification". Archived from the original on 13 November 2004. Retrieved 22 November 2015.
  133. Popper, Karl Raimund (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Psychology Press. p. 449. ISBN 978-0415285940. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  134. Bakunin, Mikhail (5 October 1872), "Letter to La Liberté, quoted in Bakunin on Anarchy, translated and edited by Sam Dolgoff, 1971", Marxists Internet Archive, archived from the original on 19 March 2022, retrieved 24 April 2022
  135. Sperber, Jonathan (2013). Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0871403544. Archived from the original on 26 October 2021. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  136. Dmitriev, V. K. (1974) [1898]. Economic Essays on Value, Competition and Utility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  137. Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, 1952 (1906–1907), "Value and Price in the Marxian System", International Economic Papers 2, 5–60; Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, 1984 (1907), "On the Correction of Marx's Fundamental Theoretical Construction in the Third Volume of Capital". In Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk 1984 (1896), Karl Marx and the Close of his System, Philadelphia: Orion Editions.
  138. Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (1992). "12". A History of Marxian Economics. Vol. II, 1929–1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. §III.
  139. "What We Can Know About the World". Ludwig von Mises Institute. 1 December 2009. Archived from the original on 13 February 2020. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
  140. von Mises, Ludwig (2008). Omnipotent Government. Read Books. ISBN 978-1443726467. Archived from the original on 12 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  141. Haberler, Gottfried (1966). Drachkovitch, Milorad M. (ed.). Marxist Ideology in the Contemporary World: Its Appeals and Paradoxes. Books for Libraries Press. p. 124. ISBN 978-0836981544.
  142. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (PDF). Ludwig von Mises Institute. 2014. ISBN 978-1610164542. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  143. Acemoglu, Daron; Robinson, James A. (1 February 2015). "The Rise and Decline of General Laws of Capitalism". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 29 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1257/jep.29.1.3. hdl:1721.1/113636. S2CID 14001669. Archived from the original on 17 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.


Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.