Marxism - Definition
If you still have questions or prefer to get help directly from an agent, please submit a request.
We’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
- Professionalism & Career Development
Marxism is a socio-economic philosophy or method of analysis. It seeks to explain social movements or transformations in society that are driven by economic conditions affecting social classes. The theory explains that forces of production (such as technology improvements) will obviate (do away with the need for) individuals who do that work. This will cause conflict between the class of individuals who own or control production (bourgeoise) and those who work to actual produce (proletariat) classes.
A Little More on What is Marxism
Marxist theory derives form the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels. Marxist theories have developed over time and apply to many productive areas. The theory rests on the idea that social change happens based upon the struggle between socio-economic classes.
Academic Research on Marxism
Marxismand class theory, Parkin, F. (1983). Marxismand Deconstruction a Critical Articulation, Ryan, M. (1982). This paper examines the Marxism theory and deconstruction. It highlights the differences between both theories as well as their similarities. This study focuses on Marx's radical critique of capitalist ideology. It also aims to associate Marxism and deconstrution while avoiding Marx's logocentric misappropriation of metaphysics factors. The problem of ideology-Marxismwithout guarantees, Hall, S. (1986).Journal of Communication Inquiry,10(2), 28-44. Marxismand law, Collins, H. (1995). The origins of capitalist development: a critique of neo-SmithianMarxism, Brenner, R. (1977). New Left Review, (104), 25. This paper explores the problems posed by the appearance of systematic barriers to economic advance in the course of capitalist expansion to the Maxist theory. It also examines the response to this problem to revise Marxs conceptions regarding economic development. Marxismand morality, Lukes, S. (1986). Capital & Class,10(2), 220-222. This paper is a work dedicated to the topic Marxism and Morality. In this work, the author addresses the questions on which Marxist thinkers and actors have taken a number of characteristic stands as well as other questions on which Marxism falls silent using positions taken by Marx, Engels, and their descendants in relation to moral issues. Critical theory,Marxismand modernity, Kellner, D. (1992). This study explores the effects of historical crises of capitalism and Marxism on critical theory and reflects on the continued relevance or obsolescence of Marxism and critical theory. Communications: blindspot of westernMarxism, Smythe, D. W. (1977). CTheory,1(3), 1-27. This paper reviews the Marxism view of advertisement. In this paper, the author reviews the word of a popular marxist with regards to gains from advertisment. The paper examines the belief that the audience is the main laborer in making ads profitable, but they are paid nothing for this labor. This paper thus portrays the audience as a free laborer. Marxismand the national question, Stalin, J. (1975). Marxismand development sociology: interpreting the impasse, Booth, D. (1985). World Development,13(7), 761-787. There is an increasing sense that the new Marxist-influenced development sociology which emerged in the early 1970s has reached some kind of impasse. This paper suggests that there are good reasons for this sense of unease; that the weaknesses and lacunae in current sociological development research cannot be attributed entirely to the influence of any particular radical perspective, and that understanding the impasse requires standing back from the theoretical controversies of the past decade and a half to examine some underlying commonalities of approach.