Marxism

Marxism is a way of understanding society developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

At its heart, it argues that history is driven by struggles between social classes, especially between workers and those who own wealth and resources.

Marxism critiques capitalism for creating inequality and alienation, while imagining a future society based on cooperation, shared ownership, and fairness.

It’s not just a theory of economics, but also a lens for thinking about power, politics, and social change.

Marxism is a way of understanding society developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

It’s a big-picture (macro-level) theory that focuses on how the economy – who owns wealth and resources – shapes everything else in social life, from politics and law to education and family life.

• Core Idea: The economic system, or base, determines the character of the superstructure – social institutions like government, law, education, and religion.

• Focus: At its heart is the class struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners of wealth and resources) and the proletariat (working class who sell their labour). This relationship is viewed as inherently unequal and exploitative.

• Goal: Beyond theory, Marxism is also a political ideology, seeking to expose capitalism’s contradictions and inspire movements toward a more just, classless society.

How is Marxism different from socialism or communism?

Although the terms are often mentioned together, Marxism, socialism, and communism are distinct.

Marxism is best understood as a political ideology and worldview, while socialism and communism are economic and social systems influenced by its principles.

• Marxism (Ideology): A set of political ideas developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It critiques capitalism as exploitative, explains history through class struggle, and calls for the eventual creation of a classless society. It serves as both a framework for understanding society and a guide for revolutionary change.

• Socialism (System): An economic system where the major industries and resources are collectively owned – often run by the state in the name of the people. While some private property can exist, the aim is to reduce inequality and prioritise the collective good over private profit.

• Communism (System & Goal): A more radical system and the ultimate end point envisioned by Marx. In communism, all property is communally owned, there is no private ownership, no ruling class, and ideally no state – resulting in a fully classless society.

In short: Marxism is the political ideology and theory, socialism is one possible economic model influenced by it, and communism is the envisioned end point of Marx’s critique – a society without classes or state power.

Historical Background

Marx and Engels’s theories were a direct response to the dramatic societal changes and inequalities they observed during the 19th century, particularly those brought on by the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism.

 

Who was Karl Marx?

Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher, economist, and social thinker who is often seen as one of the founders of modern sociology.

He lived during a time of huge change in Europe, shaped by the Industrial Revolution and the aftermath of the French Revolution.

Factories, urbanisation, and growing inequality made him focus on how economic systems affect people’s lives.

Unlike some thinkers of his day who simply wanted to describe society, Marx believed the point of studying it was to change it.

His ideas became the basis of Conflict Theory, which sees society as being driven by ongoing struggles between groups with different interests and resources.

Who was Friedrich Engels?

Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) was Marx’s close friend, collaborator, and financial supporter.

Coming from a wealthy industrial family, Engels saw first-hand the harsh conditions faced by factory workers.

He wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England (1844), exposing the poverty and suffering created by industrial capitalism.

Engels and Marx co-authored The Communist Manifesto (1848), a powerful call for workers to unite, which went on to become one of the most influential political texts in history.

Engels also contributed original ideas, including critiques of the family as a social institution tied to inheritance and property.

What Inspired Their Ideas?

Marx and Engels built their theories as a response to the huge social changes and inequalities of the 19th century, especially those caused by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of capitalism.

1. The Industrial Revolution and City Life

The Industrial Revolution pulled millions of people from farms into rapidly growing cities to work in factories.

These cities were often overcrowded, filthy, and dangerous, with widespread poverty.

While some thinkers worried society was falling apart, Marx and Engels blamed capitalism for creating these harsh conditions.

2. Capitalism and Class Struggle

Capitalism is an economic system based on private or corporate ownership of factories, land, and resources.

Marx and Engels argued it split society into two main groups:

• Bourgeoisie – the wealthy minority who owned the means of production.
• Proletariat – the working majority, who had to sell their labour for wages that barely kept them alive.

They saw this relationship as a constant struggle between the rich and the poor.

3. Exploitation and Alienation of Workers

Marx and Engels believed that capitalism thrived on exploitation – owners grew rich by paying workers less than the value of what they produced.

This led to terrible social problems:

• Working conditions were brutal: long hours, child labour, unsafe “satanic mills,” and exposure to toxic environments.
• Alienation meant workers were cut off from the products they made, from the process of work, from one another, and even from their own sense of purpose – reduced to mere cogs in the machine.

4. The Power of Ideas

They also argued that the ruling class stayed in power not just through wealth, but by shaping beliefs.

Institutions like government, education, religion, and the media spread ideas that made inequality seem natural and fair.

This created false consciousness, where workers accepted values that actually harmed their own interests.

Marx famously called religion the “opium of the people” because it comforted the poor while discouraging them from challenging the system.

Drawing on these observations, Marx and Engels concluded that class conflict drives social change.

They predicted that capitalism’s extreme inequalities would eventually push workers to recognise their shared oppression, develop class consciousness, and rise up to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

The result, they argued, would be communism – a classless, more equal society based on cooperation instead of exploitation.

Two books gave Marxism both its passionate call to action (The Communist Manifesto) and its theoretical backbone (Das Kapital):

The Communist Manifesto [1848]

Written by Marx and Engels as a short, fiery pamphlet, it called on workers of the world to unite against capitalist exploitation.

Its clear, dramatic language made it easy to spread among revolutionary groups and labour movements across Europe.

Although it was first published during the wave of 1848 revolutions (which largely failed), it gave socialist and workers’ organisations a powerful rallying cry that continued to inspire activists for generations.

Das Kapital [1867]

Marx’s more detailed and theoretical work, Das Kapital analysed how capitalism operates, focusing on exploitation, profit, and the dynamics of class struggle.

While not as easy to read as the Manifesto, it provided the intellectual foundation for socialist and communist parties.

By grounding Marx’s ideas in economic analysis, it gave legitimacy to movements that wanted not just to protest capitalism, but to explain and replace it with a new system.

How was Marxism first spread and adopted in different countries?

Marxism spread quickly after Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, which called on workers of the world to unite.

• Germany: The Social Democratic Party (SPD) [founded 1875 – still active] grew into one of the world’s largest Marxist-influenced political parties.
• France: Marxism shaped socialist parties such as the French Section of the Workers’ International (SFIO) [1905–1969] and influenced trade union movements.
• Britain: It shaped the rise of the Labour Party [founded 1900 – still active] and organisations like the Independent Labour Party (ILP) [1893–1975].
• Russia: Underground revolutionary groups embraced Marxist ideas, culminating in the Bolshevik Party [1903–1917, then became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1917–1991].
• Beyond Europe: By the early 20th century, Marxism began influencing activists in China, leading to the Chinese Communist Party [founded 1921 – still active], and inspired socialist and communist parties across Latin America, many of which remain active today.

While these experiments differed from Marx’s original vision, they made Marxism one of the most influential and debated ideas of the modern era.

What Are Some Marxist-Inspired Theories Today?

Karl Marx’s ideas didn’t end with him – they’ve been adapted and reinterpreted to make sense of modern society.

Many thinkers agree with Marx’s focus on power, inequality, and exploitation, but they combine his insights with other perspectives.

Modern adaptations of Marxism show its flexibility:

• Neo-Marxism brings in culture and agency, especially in studies of crime and education.
• Critical Theory expands Marxism to include culture, communication, and ideology.
• Marxist Feminism analyses how capitalism and patriarchy work together to exploit women.
• Sociological Marxism integrates Marxist insights into wider sociology, focusing on reproduction of inequality and global capitalism.

Together, these approaches prove that Marx’s core ideas – about power, inequality, and exploitation—are still shaping debates today.

---

Marxist Theory

Historical Materialism

Historical materialism is Marx’s framework for understanding how societies change over time.

Put simply, it argues that the way people produce and share the necessities of life – like food, housing, and goods – shapes everything else in society, from politics and law to culture and ideas.

At the core is the distinction between:

• The Economic Base: how production is organised (technology, resources, and who owns them).
• The Superstructure: institutions like government, religion, education, and the media, which grow out of and help maintain the economic base.

History, Marx argued, moves forward through a series of stages of production, each defined by who owns resources and who does the work:

1. Primitive Communism: small, egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups.
2. Slave Societies: slave owners exploiting slaves.
3. Feudalism: lords exploiting peasants tied to the land.
4. Capitalism: bourgeoisie (owners of capital) exploiting proletariat (workers).
5. Communism (future stage): a classless, stateless society with collective ownership.

At every stage, inequality and exploitation create class conflict, which eventually leads to crisis and change.

Marx believed capitalism, like earlier systems, would collapse under its own contradictions – such as economic crises and growing worker resistance – paving the way for socialism and ultimately communism.

---

Base and Superstructure Model

Karl Marx believed that to really understand society – and why inequality exists – we have to look at how it’s built from the ground up.

His base and superstructure model is a way of explaining how everything in society is connected to the economy.

He said society is made up of two main parts:

1. The Economic Base (The Foundation of Society)

At the bottom of society is the economic base – this is the most important part, because it shapes everything else. It includes:

• Means of Production: These are the tools, machines, land, factories, technology, and workers needed to make things.
• Relations of Production: These are the relationships between people in the economy – mainly who owns what and who does the work.

In capitalist societies, the base is made up of two main classes:

• The Bourgeoisie (Ruling Class): They own the land, factories, and businesses.
• The Proletariat (Working Class): They don’t own much and must sell their labor (time and effort) to survive.

Marx believed this setup was inherently unfair, because workers produce more value than they’re paid, and the owners keep the profits.

2. The Superstructure (Everything Built on Top)

Above the economic base is the superstructure – this includes all the other parts of society, like:

• Government and the legal system
• Education
• Religion
• The family
• Media and culture

These institutions don’t stand alone – they’re shaped by the economic system underneath them.

How the Base Shapes the Superstructure

Marx argued that the economic base controls the superstructure. In other words:

• The class that owns the economy also controls politics, media, education, and culture.
• These institutions are designed to support capitalism and keep the ruling class in power.
• They promote ideas that make the system seem natural and fair, even when it isn’t.

Examples:

• Education teaches obedience, respect for authority, and hard work – skills useful for future workers.
• The family helps raise the next generation of workers and teaches them to accept their role in society.
• The media spreads messages that support capitalism (e.g. success = working hard, wealth = deserved).
• Religion, according to Marx, offers comfort to the poor but discourages them from challenging their conditions (“You’ll be rewarded in the afterlife”).

---

Theory of Capitalism

Karl Marx described capitalism as an economic system where businesses, land, and factories are owned by individuals or companies, not by the community as a whole.

In capitalism, these resources are controlled by a small group of people known as the bourgeoisie (or capitalist class). Everyone else – the working class, or proletariat – must sell their labor in order to survive.

Marx believed this setup was unfair.

Exploitation and False Consciousness

He argued that workers produce more value than they are paid, and that the difference – called surplus value – is kept by the capitalists as profit.

In his view, this wasn’t just unequal – it was a form of economic exploitation, where capitalists profit from workers’ labor without fairly compensating them.

Importantly, Marx thought capitalism doesn’t just use power or force to stay in control – it also shapes how people think (through ideological control).

Institutions like schools, religions, and the media teach ideas that make capitalism seem natural or fair.

This keeps workers from seeing how the system exploits them, a condition Marx called false consciousness.

Instability and Collapse

Although capitalism may appear stable, Marx believed it was full of internal problems.

He argued that it would eventually go through repeated economic crises, like overproduction, recessions, and financial crashes.

Over time, these contradictions would become too big to ignore, and the system would collapse – making way for a fairer alternative.

---

Class Struggle

Karl Marx believed that capitalist society is divided into two main classes: the bourgeoisie, who own businesses, land, and factories, and the proletariat, who must sell their labor to survive.

He argued that this relationship is built on exploitation — the bourgeoisie profits by paying workers less than the value they produce.

Growing Tensions Under Capitalism

This unequal setup creates ongoing conflict between the two classes.

To stay competitive and increase profits, employers often push for longer hours, faster work, and lower wages. As conditions worsen, workers grow frustrated and start to resist.

With industrialization came a more intense division of labor and widespread use of machinery.

Marx and Engels observed that workers were reduced to mere parts of the machine – physically exhausted, mentally drained, and paid just enough to get by.

From Frustration to Revolution

What begins as individual frustration can grow into a wider movement.

Marx believed that, over time, workers would become aware of their shared exploitation and begin to organize across industries.

This rising class consciousness could eventually lead to a revolution, replacing capitalism with a classless society where no group holds power over another.

• False consciousness is when people don’t realise they’re being treated unfairly by the system. They might blame themselves for their struggles and believe that success is just a matter of working harder.
• Class consciousness is when people become aware of their shared position in society. They recognise that inequality isn’t just personal – it’s structural. This awareness can lead to collective action to push for change.

False Consciousness vs Class Consciousness

Feature	False Consciousness	Class Consciousness
Awareness	People don’t see how the system is treating them unfairly. They may blame themselves.	People understand their class position and see how they’re being exploited.
View of Ideology	Accepts the beliefs and values of the ruling class (e.g., hard work always leads to success).	Questions those beliefs and sees them as tools to keep the powerful in control.
Response to Inequality	Thinks poverty is a personal failure or bad luck. Accepts the system as normal or unchangeable.	Recognizes that inequality is built into the system and feels it needs to be changed.
Political Stance	Stays quiet, follows the rules, doesn’t question authority.	Ready to take action, join with others, and demand a fairer society.

---

Alienation

Marx’s theory of alienation explains how workers in a capitalist system can feel disconnected – from their work, from other people, and even from themselves.

He believed that modern industrial jobs turn workers into just another part of the machine, repeating the same tasks with little control or meaning.

Marx said this alienation happens in four key ways:

1. From the product – Workers don’t own or benefit from what they create. It belongs to someone else.
2. From the work itself – They have little say in how or when they work. The job is just a means to earn money.
3. From other people – Capitalism encourages competition, not collaboration, between workers.
4. From themselves – With no purpose or pride in their work, people can lose a sense of who they are.

Even though machines and technology make production more efficient, workers often see none of the benefits.

They remain underpaid and overworked, while the profits go to the business owners.

Marx believed this system not only exploits workers materially, but also disconnects them emotionally and socially, leaving them unfulfilled and powerless.

---

Communism

Marx and Engels believed that communism would eventually replace capitalism.

They argued that if workers continued to be exploited, they would become more aware of their situation and eventually rise up in revolution.

In The Communist Manifesto, they described how the working class, once united, could overthrow the capitalist system and take control of the economy.

A Society Without Private Ownership

In a communist society, there would be no private ownership of land, factories, or major businesses.

Instead, these resources would be shared and managed by the community.

The goal was to create a society without rich or poor – where everyone works for the common good and no one profits from another person’s labor.

A Classless, Needs-Based System

Marx imagined a classless and stateless world, where people contribute based on their abilities and receive what they need.

Work would become meaningful, not just a way to survive, and wealth would be distributed fairly – not based on profit, but on human needs.

Key Features of Marxist Communism

Some key ideas in Marxist communism include:

• Community control over major services like banking, transportation, and communication.
• Abolishing inherited wealth
• A fairer tax system (with higher taxes on the rich)
• Free public education for all

---

Marxist Interpretation

Marxism isn’t just a big-picture (marco) theory of history — it’s also used to analyse how everyday institutions work.

Its key ideas help explain how power and inequality are maintained in capitalist societies.

Three areas where Marxist analysis has been especially influential are education, the family, and crime.

---

1. Education

Marxists see education as more than a neutral path to knowledge or opportunity.

Instead, they argue that schools are designed to serve the needs of capitalism.

• Reproducing Inequality: Schools reproduce class inequality by funnelling children from different backgrounds into different outcomes.
  
  Wealthy students often access elite private schools and universities that prepare them for leadership roles, while working-class students are pushed into lower-paid, routine work. This process of social reproduction makes inequality look normal and fair.
• Transmitting Ideology: Schools pass on a ruling-class worldview. Through lessons and the hidden curriculum (unspoken values), children are taught to accept authority, competition, and individual success as natural. This shifts blame for failure onto individuals rather than the system.
• The Correspondence Principle: Bowles and Gintis argued that schools reflect the workplace. Students are rewarded for obedience, punctuality, and conformitythe same traits employers need in workers. Schoolwork itself often mirrors the dull, repetitive tasks of many jobs.
• Critique of Policies: Marxists see reforms like school choice or marketisation as benefiting mainly middle-class families, who can use their wealth and cultural knowledge to secure the best schools.
  
  Vocational training is criticised for preparing working-class youth for low-paid jobs rather than offering real mobility.
• Neo-Marxist Views: Pierre Bourdieu argued that schools reward cultural capital – the tastes, knowledge, and habits of the middle class—turning privilege into success.
  
  Paul Willis’s famous study Learning to Labour showed how working-class boys rejected school values, but ironically, this rebellion prepared them for the very low-skilled jobs the system had destined for them.

---

2. The Family

Marxists argue that the family, often seen as private and personal, also plays a major role in keeping capitalism stable.

• Supporting Capitalism: Families raise and care for future generations of workers, effectively reproducing “labour power” for free.
  
  They also act as a unit of consumption, buying goods and services that fuel profits. Families provide emotional support, functioning as a “safety valve” that helps workers cope with the stress of alienating jobs.
• Passing Down Inequality: Engels argued that the nuclear family developed with private property. Families pass wealth and property to children, ensuring class inequalities are reproduced across generations.
• Women and Capitalism: Marxist feminists highlight how women’s unpaid domestic work (cooking, childcare, housework) benefits capitalism.
  
  Women also form a reserve army of labour — a flexible, low-cost workforce that can be drawn into or pushed out of employment depending on economic needs. This maintains both gender and class inequality.

---

3. Crime and Deviance

Marxist criminology sees crime not as a personal failing but as a product of the capitalist system itself.

• Capitalism Creates Crime: Inequality, poverty, and unemployment push working-class people toward crime for survival. At the same time, capitalism promotes values of greed and competition, encouraging crime at all levels of society.
• Law and Power: Laws are created to protect the interests of the ruling class, especially private property. Law enforcement is selective: street crimes by the poor are punished harshly, while harmful corporate or white-collar crimes are often ignored or treated leniently.
  
  This creates the impression that the poor are the “problem,” diverting attention from the real damage caused by the powerful.
• Who Counts as a Victim: The state defines who qualifies as a victim. Crimes by corporations or governments – such as unsafe working conditions or environmental damage – are often overlooked, even though they harm millions.
• Neo-Marxist Views: Later theorists argued that crime can also be a form of resistance. Theft or vandalism can be understood as symbolic acts against inequality, while riots may represent collective uprisings against injustice. In this way, crime is not just caused by capitalism but can also challenge it.

---

4. Religion

From a Marxist perspective, religion is less about divine truth and more about social power.

It is seen as part of the superstructure – the institutions (like family, education, and media) that sit on top of the economic base of society.

Marxists see religion as a human creation that becomes a powerful tool for maintaining inequality.

By comforting the oppressed and promoting obedience, it helps keep capitalism stable – making it one of the strongest conservative forces in society.

Religion as the “Opiate of the Masses”

Karl Marx’s famous phrase captures how religion can act like a drug, comforting people but also dulling their awareness of exploitation.

1. Justifying inequality: Religion often portrays the social order as natural or God-given. Poverty is presented as a test of faith or a path to heavenly reward, while wealth is framed as a blessing. This helps create false consciousness – workers accept their suffering rather than questioning capitalism.
2. Enforcing control: Religious rules and moral codes encourage obedience and conformity, which stabilises the system. For example, commandments like “honour thy father and mother” or “do not steal” reinforce authority and private property.
3. Masking exploitation: Religion provides comfort in the face of hardship, death, or injustice, but in Marx’s eyes, this consolation is an illusion. It distracts people from recognising that the real source of their suffering is capitalist exploitation.

Religion as an Ideological State Apparatus

Marxists argue that ruling classes control not just material production but also mental production – the spread of ideas.

Religion, like schools or the media, is an Ideological State Apparatus (Althusser’s term).

Its job is to win “hearts and minds,” persuading people that inequality is natural and fair.

In modern societies, schools may have taken over much of this role, but religion still functions as a key transmitter of ruling-class ideology.

Historical and Contemporary Views

• Max Weber’s challenge: Marx saw religion as a brake on change, but Weber argued it could also fuel change. His study of Calvinism claimed that Protestant values of discipline and hard work helped give rise to modern capitalism.
• Feminist critiques: Feminists add that religion often reinforces patriarchy. Many traditions portray women as inferior or prescribe submissive roles, helping to maintain gender inequality alongside class inequality.
• Fundamentalism: The growth of religious fundamentalist movements can be seen as a reaction to capitalism and modernity. Yet, these movements often promote conservative values that end up protecting the social order.

---

Neo-Marxism

Neo-Marxism is a broad label for sociological theories developed mainly in the 20th century that adapt and extend the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

While staying true to the core belief that capitalism is built on class conflict, exploitation, and inequality, Neo-Marxists combine Marxist insights with other approaches like symbolic interactionism, social action theory, and even poststructuralism.

The result is a more flexible and less deterministic way of understanding society.

Key Thinkers: Antonio Gramsci, Pierre Bourdieu, Paul Willis, Stuart Hall, Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, Jock Young.

---

Core Principles and Critique of Classical Marxism

Neo-Marxists share some fundamental assumptions with Marx:

• Capitalism is based on class exploitation between the bourgeoisie (ruling class) and proletariat (working class).
• The state, education, and media largely serve ruling-class interests.
• The economic base influences the superstructure (politics, law, culture).

But they also move beyond Marx in important ways:

1. Rejecting economic determinism: Classical Marxism can sound like people are just puppets of the economy. Neo-Marxists argue this is too simplistic. Instead, they stress that individuals have agency—they make choices and resist, even within unequal systems.
2. Focusing on meaning and identity: Borrowing from interactionist perspectives, Neo-Marxists look at how people interpret their own situations. Working-class groups are not just passive victims of capitalism—they actively respond, sometimes resisting, sometimes adapting, and sometimes finding creative ways to survive.

---

Applications of Neo-Marxism

Neo-Marxism has been especially influential in education and criminology.

1. Education and Cultural Capital (Pierre Bourdieu)

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu explained how inequality persists not only through money but also through culture.

• Cultural Capital: Middle-class families pass on cultural assets – language styles, tastes, values – that schools reward. For example, knowing how to speak in a more “formal” code or appreciating high culture like literature or classical music.
• Symbolic Violence: Schools treat this middle-class culture as superior, making working-class students feel devalued. This can alienate them or push them into failure.
• Social Reproduction: Because schools reward middle-class culture, class inequality is reproduced across generations, even if it looks like success is based only on merit.

Bourdieu’s work shows how education is not neutral but a powerful tool for maintaining social hierarchy.

2. Crime and the New Criminology (Taylor, Walton, and Young)

In criminology, Neo-Marxists Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young developed the New Criminology (1973), also called Critical Criminology.

• Crime as political action: Instead of seeing crime as just poverty-driven, they argued it can be a conscious act of resistance against injustice.
  • Theft may be an attempt to redistribute wealth.
  • Vandalism can be a symbolic protest against materialism.
  • Riots may represent political uprisings against racism, police brutality, or inequality.
• A fully social theory: They insisted crime must be studied in its full context—the structure of inequality, the meaning of the act to the offender, and how society reacts (e.g., labelling).

This perspective reframed criminals not simply as deviants but sometimes as agents of protest, challenging the system.

---

Criticisms of Neo-Marxism

Despite its influence, Neo-Marxism has been widely critiqued:

• Too idealistic: Everyday crimes like domestic abuse or fraud don’t neatly fit the idea of “political rebellion,” making the theory harder to apply in practice.
• Romanticising crime: Critics (especially Left Realists) argue it glamorises criminals as rebels, ignoring the fact that most victims of crime are working-class people, not the wealthy elite.
• Gender-blind: Feminists point out that Neo-Marxism often overlooks women’s experiences and the role of gender in oppression.

---

Critical Theory

Critical Theory began with the Frankfurt School in Germany in the 1920s.

It developed out of Marxism but went further, broadening the focus from economics alone to include culture, ideas, and communication.

At its heart, Critical Theory argues that theory should not just explain the world but also help free people from domination and expand human freedom.

Key Thinkers: Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, Robert Cox.

---

Reconstructing Marxism: Beyond Economic Determinism

The Frankfurt School agreed with Marx that capitalism generates inequality, but they argued that reducing everything to economics was too narrow.

Modern societies, they believed, are held together not only by production and labour but also by culture, ideas, and communication.

Production and Communication

• Classical Marxism put the economic base (forces and relations of production) at the centre, with the superstructure (politics, law, culture) shaped by it.
• Critical theorist Jürgen Habermas argued this was too one-sided. He introduced the “paradigm of communication”: the idea that everyday interaction, language, and shared meaning are just as central to holding societies together as economic production.
• For Habermas, power is not only about who controls factories and capital—it’s also about who controls the flow of communication, who gets heard, and how decisions are justified in public life.
• This shift opened the door to studying the media, public opinion, and even everyday conversations as sites of domination and potential emancipation.

Critique of Ideology and Immanent Critique

• Like Marx, critical theorists focused on ideology—the set of ideas and beliefs that make social inequality appear natural and just. But they refined the tools for analysing it.
• Their key method is immanent critique, which means holding societies accountable to their own ideals.
  • Example: If a democracy claims to value freedom and equality, critical theory asks whether its institutions—laws, media, economic practices—actually uphold those values.
  • This reveals contradictions between official claims and lived reality, such as societies proclaiming equality while tolerating racial injustice, gender inequality, or deep poverty.
• The aim of this critique is not just to describe contradictions but to highlight opportunities for change by showing how real conditions fail to meet widely accepted standards.

Why It Matters

By moving beyond Marx’s economic determinism, the Frankfurt School made Marxism into a more flexible framework.

It could now be used to analyse culture, communication, and power in new contexts—such as mass media, propaganda, consumer culture, and later, global politics.

This allowed critical theorists to explain forms of domination that weren’t just about the workplace or wages but about how people think, interact, and even imagine freedom.

---

Marxist Feminism

Marxist feminism is a strand of feminist thought that blends Marx’s ideas about class with feminism’s focus on gender.

It argues that women in capitalist societies face a double oppression: they are exploited as workers under capitalism and subordinated as women under patriarchy.

This isn’t accidental – Marxist feminists argue women’s subordination actively benefits capitalism by keeping profits high and inequality intact.

Key Thinkers: Friedrich Engels, Margaret Benston, Silvia Federici, Christine Delphy, Heidi Hartmann.

---

The Family as a Site of Exploitation

Marxist feminists place special emphasis on the family, showing how it benefits capitalism in ways that rely on the exploitation of women.

1. Reproducing labour power for free

Women raise the next generation of workers – bearing and caring for children who will later enter the workforce.

This essential task is done as unpaid domestic labour, which means capitalism gets future workers at no cost.

At the same time, wives maintain the current workforce by feeding, caring for, and supporting husbands, helping them stay productive for their paid jobs.

Because of this, employers can pay men wages that only cover their own needs, while women’s unpaid labour fills in the rest – boosting capitalist profits.

2. The “unpaid servant” role

Within the traditional nuclear family, women often act as unpaid servants, responsible for housework and childcare.

Sociologist Margaret Benston argued that this hidden, unpaid role directly supports capitalism by keeping the system running smoothly and cheaply.

---

Women in the Labour Market

Women’s experiences at work also reflect their structural exploitation under capitalism.

A reserve army of labour

As sociologist Heidi Hartmann and others explain, women often act as a “reserve army of labour.”

Employers can draw on them as a cheap, flexible workforce during economic booms and then dismiss them during downturns.

This keeps women in insecure jobs, lowers their bargaining power, and helps drive down men’s wages too.

Economic dependence

Patriarchal norms and capitalist structures often force women into part-time jobs or into leaving work to raise children.

This creates economic dependence on men and reinforces the traditional division where men are breadwinners and women carers, keeping male dominance intact both at work and at home.

---

Relationship to Other Feminist Theories

Marxist feminism connects to, but also differs from, other feminist approaches:

• Critique of Marxism: Classical Marxism often ignored gender, focusing mainly on class exploitation. Marxist feminists argue that this is incomplete without examining how patriarchy works alongside capitalism.
• Liberal feminism: Liberal feminists focus on reform—changing laws and policies to create equality. Marxist feminists argue reforms aren’t enough because the root of inequality lies in capitalism itself.
• Radical feminism: Radical feminists see patriarchy as the oldest and most fundamental oppression, existing in all societies. Marxist feminists agree patriarchy matters but insist it is deeply tied to capitalism’s class system.
• Postcolonial feminism: Postcolonial feminists caution against treating women’s oppression as universal. They argue that race, colonial history, and cultural context also shape women’s experiences—something Marxist feminism has sometimes overlooked

---

Sociological Marxism

This approach brings Marxist insights into mainstream sociology, focusing less on predicting capitalism’s collapse and more on how it is reproduced and contested.

Sociological Marxism keeps Marx’s sharp focus on exploitation and class conflict but uses it in a more flexible way.

It explains why capitalism survives through crisis and adaptation, while also opening space for imagining new futures.

Instead of saying socialism is guaranteed, it challenges us to ask: what would it take to create a fairer and freer society?

Key Thinkers: Ralph Miliband, Nicos Poulantzas, Erik Olin Wright.

---

Core Ideas

Sociological Marxism keeps many of Marx’s basic insights but frames them in a way that makes sense for the complexity of modern society.

1. Class as Exploitation

The heart of sociological Marxism is the idea that class means exploitation.

In capitalism, a small group (the bourgeoisie) owns the means of production—factories, land, and capital – while the majority (the proletariat) must sell their labour to survive.

This relationship benefits the owners, who take the surplus value (profit) from workers’ unpaid labour.

2. Base and Superstructure

Society is shaped by the economic base (how production is organised) and supported by the superstructure (politics, law, education, culture, family).

These superstructures don’t stand above class conflict—they help maintain and justify it, often protecting the interests of the ruling class.

3. Ideology and False Consciousness

The ruling class spreads its worldview as if it were natural and inevitable.

Schools, media, and even families can reproduce this ruling-class ideology, making inequality appear normal.

This creates false consciousness among workers, who may accept or even defend the system that exploits them.

---

Contradictory Reproduction

Where sociological Marxism really differs from classical Marxism is in its outlook on history.

Marx predicted capitalism would eventually collapse and be replaced by socialism.

But in reality, capitalism has proved adaptable.

Sociological Marxism explains this survival through the idea of contradictory reproduction:

1. Reproducing Class Relations: Capitalism is unstable by nature, so it relies on institutions to keep it going. Schools, families, and laws help reproduce class relations by preparing people to accept their roles in the system.
2. Built-in Contradictions: These institutions never work perfectly. Economic changes, new technologies, or shifts in class struggle expose cracks. Over time, the very structures designed to stabilise capitalism start to break down.
3. Crisis and Renovation: When institutions falter, societies face crises. To survive, capitalism adapts through reforms—sometimes small, sometimes major, like the rise of the welfare state.
   
   These fixes usually protect capitalist interests but often require compromises, producing a cycle of stability, crisis, and renewal.

---

From Destiny to Possibility: Real Utopias

Unlike older Marxism, sociological Marxism doesn’t claim socialism is inevitable.

Instead, it argues socialism is a possibility, something that depends on struggle, creativity, and strategy. This means:

• Imagining “real utopias” – practical alternatives that promote equality and democracy.
• Learning from past socialist experiments to avoid repeating mistakes.
• Building on real-world practices (like cooperatives, participatory democracy, or social movements) that already point beyond capitalism.

---

Criticisms of Marxism

Karl Marx’s ideas have had a huge impact on how we understand inequality in society.

But many sociologists – across different schools of thought – have raised criticisms of Marxism, especially when it comes to education, crime, and the modern world.

---

In Education

Marxists argue that schools help keep the rich in power by teaching working-class students to accept low-paying jobs. But critics disagree on several points:

• Working-class kids don’t just accept their roles (Neo-Marxist view): Paul Willis’s famous study Learning to Labour showed that some students actively reject school values, even if that still leads them to working-class jobs.
• More opportunities now than before (Social Democratic view): Critics argue that Marxists ignore how education has improved access for working-class students, especially since reforms in the 1960s opened up universities and better jobs.
• Not just about class—some are naturally more talented (New Right view): Thinkers like Peter Saunders say some children do better in school because of natural ability, not just privilege—though this idea is very controversial.
• State education fails everyone (Neo-Liberal view): Neo-liberals argue that government-run schools are inefficient and fail students from all backgrounds, not just the working class.
• Students shape their own identities (Postmodernist view): Postmodernists say schools don’t just reflect class divisions anymore. Instead, students explore who they are through gender, ethnicity, and lifestyle—not just class.

---

The Family

Marxist theory gives us a sharp way of seeing how the family may serve capitalism.

Critics say it is too narrow.

It overlooks family diversity, the emotional benefits of family life, and the role of patriarchy as a source of women’s oppression in its own right.

In short, Marxism explains part of the picture, but not the whole story.

1. Too Much Focus on Capitalism

A common criticism is that Marxism is economically determinist – it explains almost everything about the family in terms of capitalism.

• Ignores non-capitalist societies: Problems like domestic violence or child abuse occur across all types of societies, not just capitalist ones.
• Overlooks other influences: Marxism downplays factors such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and religion, which also shape family life. Postmodernists stress that identity is built from many sources, not just class.

2. An Outdated Picture of the Family

Critics argue that Marxist views – especially Engels’ – are tied to a very narrow and old-fashioned picture of the family.

• Focus on the nuclear family: Like functionalists, Marxists emphasise the traditional family of two parents and children, but this ignores the growing diversity of modern families. such as single-parent households, blended families, or same-sex couples.
• Historical inaccuracy: Engels claimed the nuclear family developed mainly to solve inheritance issues under capitalism. Yet historian Peter Laslett found that nuclear families already existed in pre-industrial England, long before capitalism took hold.

3. Overly Negative and Deterministic

Marxists tend to present the family as only a tool of oppression, which many argue is too one-sided.

• Neglect of positive functions: Functionalists point out that families can provide love, care, emotional support, and stability – functions that individuals genuinely value.
• Passive view of individuals: Marxism suggests family members simply absorb ruling-class ideology, but in reality, people can question, resist, or reshape the values they’re taught. Children, for instance, can influence parents just as much as parents influence them.

4. Feminist Critiques: Capitalism vs. Patriarchy

Feminist perspectives highlight that Marxism doesn’t go far enough in addressing gender inequality.

• Class over gender: Marxist feminists link women’s unpaid domestic labour to capitalism, but radical feminists argue that the deeper problem is patriarchy – male dominance—which exists in all societies, not just capitalist ones.
• Who benefits most?: While Marxists say women’s work at home mainly benefits the capitalist class, radical feminists argue that it’s men who gain directly from women’s unpaid labour and economic dependence within families.

---

In Criminology and Society

Marxists argue that capitalism encourages crime and that laws protect the rich. But again, there are several objections:

• Too focused on money (Economic determinism): Critics say Marxism explains everything through economics and ignores other sources of inequality, like racism and sexism.
• Overpredicts crime in the working class: Not all poor people commit crimes, and not all crimes are caused by poverty. Critics say Marxism makes it seem like working-class people have no choice.
• Criminals aren’t heroes (Left Realist view): Neo-Marxists are sometimes accused of making working-class criminals look like modern-day Robin Hoods. In reality, most crimes hurt other working-class people.
• Can’t explain all crime: Marxist theory focuses on theft and property crime but struggles to explain things like domestic abuse or sexual violence, which aren’t always about money or class.
• Ignores women’s experiences (Feminist view): Marxism has been called “gender-blind” for focusing mostly on male workers and criminals while overlooking women’s roles and struggles.
• Too hard to test (Popper’s criticism): Philosopher Karl Popper said Marxism is unscientific because it can’t be proven wrong – if everything is seen as part of class struggle, then no evidence can ever disprove it.
• Capitalism hasn’t collapsed: One of the biggest historical criticisms is that Marx’s prediction of a worldwide workers’ revolution hasn’t happened. In many capitalist countries, workers have better conditions and more rights than Marx expected.

---

In Religion

Marxism sees religion as an ideological tool of the ruling class – an “opiate of the masses” that dulls pain, offers illusory comfort, and keeps workers from challenging inequality.

While this is a powerful critique, many sociologists argue the perspective is too narrow and overlooks other important aspects of religion.

For some, it is a source of unity, meaning, and even social transformation, as well as a site of patriarchal control that cannot be explained by class alone.

1. Functionalist Critique: Neglect of Positive Functions

Functionalists like Émile Durkheim argue that Marxism overemphasises conflict and misses the constructive roles religion can play:

• Provides meaning and purpose in times of suffering and uncertainty.
• Promotes social cohesion by uniting people through rituals and shared beliefs.
• Offers moral guidance through rules (e.g., the Ten Commandments) that benefit society as a whole.
• Can inspire change, as seen in the role of Black churches in the U.S. civil rights movement.

2. Weberian Critique: Religion as a Driver of Change

Max Weber challenged Marx’s claim that religion is only a conservative force. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he argued:

• Calvinist beliefs about predestination motivated people to work hard, live frugally, and reinvest wealth.
• These religious values helped create the conditions for modern capitalism, showing that religion can shape the economy, not just reflect it.

3. Feminist Critique: Gender Blindness

Feminists agree that religion can reinforce oppression but argue Marxism ignores gender:

• Patriarchy vs. capitalism: Radical feminists see patriarchy—not capitalism—as the main source of women’s subordination.
• Men as beneficiaries: Religion often supports male dominance by restricting women’s roles and legitimising their unpaid domestic labour.

4. General Critiques: Negativity and Economic Reductionism

Other scholars argue Marxism is too negative and too focused on economics:

• It ignores positive, personal aspects of religion, such as comfort, identity, and belonging.
• It is economically deterministic, assuming religion is wholly shaped by capitalism rather than by cultural, historical, or spiritual factors.

---

How Marxism Is Criticised by Functionalists

While Marxism highlights inequality and social conflict, Functionalism offers a more positive view – seeing institutions as necessary for social order, not just tools of oppression.

Critics say Marxism can be too negative and ignore the ways that schools, families, and shared values help society stay stable and connected.

1. It Overlooks Social Stability

Marxism tends to see institutions like schools and families as tools used by the rich to stay in power. But Functionalists argue that these institutions are also essential for keeping society stable.

For example, schools help bring people together and prepare them for adult life – not just by reinforcing class divisions, but by teaching important life skills.

2. It Dismisses Genuine Agreement on Values

Marxists argue that shared values are just a way to trick the working class into accepting inequality (what Marx called false consciousness).

But Functionalists believe that many shared values are real and help society function. For example, values like fairness, honesty, or hard work can benefit everyone – not just the powerful.

3. It Gives a One-Sided View of Institutions

Marxists mostly focus on the negative side of institutions—how they reproduce inequality.

But Functionalists say this is only part of the story.

Schools may reflect class divisions, but they also provide opportunities for learning and social mobility.

Families may pass on traditional roles, but they also give emotional support and care to people in all social classes.

---

References

Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 127–186). Monthly Review Press.

Benjamin, W. (1968). Illuminations (H. Arendt, Ed.; H. Zohn, Trans.). Schocken Books.

Benston, M. (1969). The political economy of women’s liberation. Monthly Review, 21(4), 13–27.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in capitalist America. Sociology of Education, 75(1), 1–18.

Briken, K., & Taylor, P. (2018). Fulfilling the ‘British way’: Beyond constrained choice—Amazon workers’ lived experiences of workfare. Industrial Relations Journal, 49(5–6), 438–458.

Cohen, G. A. (1968). Bourgeois and proletarians. Journal of the History of Ideas, 29(2), 211–230.

Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.

Crossman, A. (2020). False consciousness. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/false-consciousness-3026195

Darity, W. A. (2008). International encyclopedia of the social sciences. Macmillan Reference USA.

Delphy, C. (1984). Close to home: A materialist analysis of women’s oppression. Hutchinson.

Durkheim, É. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1912)

Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.

Hartmann, H. (1979). The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: Towards a more progressive union. Capital & Class, 3(2), 1–33.

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1944)

Kellner, D. (1989). Critical theory, Marxism, and modernity. Polity Press.

Lincoln, C. E., & Mamiya, L. H. (1990). The Black church in the African American experience. Duke University Press.

Little, D. (1996). False consciousness. In A companion to the philosophy of mind. Blackwell.

Mandel, E. (1979). Introduction to Marxism. Ink Links.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Beacon Press.

Marx, K. (2018). Das Kapital. e-artnow. (Original work published 1867)

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto (S. Moore, Trans.). Penguin. (Original work published 1848)

McMurrer, D. P., & Sawhill, I. V. (1998). Getting ahead: Economic and social mobility in America. The Urban Institute.

Meyerson, D. (1991). False consciousness. Oxford University Press.

Miliband, R. (1969). The state in capitalist society. Basic Books.

Parkin, F. (2019). Marxism and class theory: A bourgeois critique. In Social stratification (pp. 162–177). Routledge.

Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies (Vol. 1). Routledge.

Poulantzas, N. (1978). State, power, socialism. Verso.

Prychitko, D. L. (1991). Marxism and workers’ self-management: The essential tension. Greenwood Press.

Prychitko, D. L. (2002). Markets, planning, and democracy: Essays after the collapse of communism. Edward Elgar.

Ratner, C. (2014). False consciousness. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 713–716). Springer.

Rémond, A. (2013). Un jeune homme est passé. Média Diffusion.

Sagarra, E. (2017). The bourgeoisie. In A social history of Germany 1648–1914 (pp. 253–262). Routledge.

Saunders, P. (1990). Social class and stratification. Routledge.

Savur, M. (1975). Sociology of conflict theory. Social Scientist, 3(9), 29–42.

Siegrist, E. (2007). Bourgeoisie, history of. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Blackwell.

Smith, A. (1937). The wealth of nations. Modern Library. (Original work published 1776)

Starks, B. (2007). False consciousness. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Blackwell.

Swidler, A. (1973). The concept of rationality in the work of Max Weber. Sociological Inquiry, 43(1), 35–42.

Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. Routledge.

Thompson, D. (2016). Marxism. In The encyclopedia of political thought (pp. 2292–2299). Wiley-Blackwell.

Weber, M. (2002). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (S. Kalberg, Trans.). Roxbury. (Original work published 1905)

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working-class kids get working-class jobs. Saxon House.

Wright, E. O. (1997). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Wright, E. O., & Singelmann, J. (1982). Proletarianization in the changing American class structure. American Journal of Sociology, 88(S), S176–S209.