In the broadest sense imaginable, Marxism is a conflict-oriented economic interpretation of history based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It developed into two separate traditions: one political, which aimed to overthrow capitalism in favor of some form of communism, and the other academic, which is far less politically oriented. The academic tradition exists as a form of criticism, an analytical method, and a theoretical lens used to examine everything from literature and architecture to race, gender, and political economy.
The academic tradition is frequently distorted and attacked by reactionaries who will do whatever they can do divorce a connection between Marxism and economics in the popular mind. Such a divorce in fact makes no sense since the academic tradition was developed by Marx so he could study economics. The academic tradition being Dialectical Materialism. It is notable that reactionaries have no idea what Dialectical Materialism is and the louder they scream the louder is their admission of ignorance (Jordan Peterson being a notable example (K-Dogs value added content)).
Why is Marxism conflict-oriented? In their reading of history, Marx and Engels focused on technological innovation and class conflict as the driving forces behind social development and change. While this is a simplification, they argued that all societies progressed through four stages: primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Each stage was characterized by distinct technological modes of production and the revolutionary tensions between the wealthy and the poor.
For example, in primitive communism—which Marx imagined as a Stone Age hunter-gatherer society—productive labor was shared equally. Over time, technological innovations like agriculture and animal domestication led to specialized labor, creating class divisions. Some people gained power and established laws to maintain their dominance, resulting in class conflict. This dynamic, Marx argued, drives societal change: new technology exacerbates class tensions, leading to revolutionary shifts in social organization.
That scratches the surface, but leaves way too much out.
Marxist Cultural Theory
In Marxist cultural theory, this historical interpretation was combined with a structural model dividing societies into two parts for analysis:
The Base (Infrastructure) – This consists of the technological means of production (industry, land, natural resources) and the social interactions
tied to economic activity (buying, selling, labor relations).
The Superstructure – This includes media, education, religion, politics, and law—the cultural institutions that shape identities and ideologies.
In classical Marxist theory, the base and superstructure exist in a dynamic relationship, each influencing the other. Marxist sociologists and anthropologists applied this model using dialectical analysis, a method that examines social groups in terms of their conflicting interests. For instance, to understand the bourgeoisie (factory and business owners), Marxist critique would analyze how their economic interests clash with those of the proletariat (working class). The dialectical approach simplifies complex social phenomena into binary conflicts, theorizing how these tensions might resolve or lead to new social structures.
Marxist Criticism
While simplified here, these models were highly influential in the social sciences. They formed the backbone of Soviet anthropology and post-revolutionary Chinese social theory, while also shaping
I am beginning to think this video is a wolf in sheep's clothing. That last oversimplification was disgusting. Here is some nuance:
Gramsci's revisions to Base-Superstructure Theory
Rejection of Economic Determinism: Gramsci strongly opposed the crude interpretation that the economic base mechanically determines the superstructure. While maintaining that economic relations are ultimately foundational, he emphasized the superstructure's active role in maintaining social order.
Two-Layered Superstructure: Gramsci divided the superstructure into:
Political Society: The state and its coercive apparatus (law, police, military)
Civil Society: Cultural institutions (education, media, religion) that generate consent.
Hegemony as the Key Mechanism: The ruling class maintains power not just through economic control (base) but primarily through cultural hegemony - getting subordinate classes to accept the existing order as "common sense" via civil and social.
Relative Autonomy: Gramsci argued superstructural elements like ideology have significant autonomy from the base and can react back upon it.
Counter-Hegemony: Revolutionary change requires winning the "war of position" in civil society before the "war of maneuver" to seize state power.
Western academic criticism.
However, Marxism has faced significant critiques:
Anthropological Criticisms: Classical Marxist readings of history were seen as overly deterministic and Eurocentric. They imposed a European model of development onto non-European societies, a flaw heavily criticized up through the 1970s.
Empirical Criticisms: Since Marx viewed social science as a tool for political change, his theories (and those of his followers) were often accused of partisan bias, raising questions about the objectivity of Marxist research.
By the late 20th century, postmodernism led to a generational shift away from grand Marxist narratives. Yet, many scholars retained Marxism's focus on ideology, power, and economic critique, adapting it to analyze contemporary struggles. Thinkers like Judith Butler, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, and Axel Honneth have reimagined Marxist dialectics to examine race, gender, labor, trans rights, and minority identities.
Today, Marxism is best understood as a diverse theoretical movement with a complex past—one that reemerged as a profound critique of capitalism and its systems of exploitation, mirrored in global liberation movements.
I have to wind this up in a larger font because Marxists absolutely did not make this video. It is a slick package that may lead you into thinking you are going to learn about Marxism watching it, but the actual fact is that this is a reactionary video that does everything it can to ignore and cancel the foundation of class struggle on which Marxism is built.
Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, and Axel Honneth have all faced accusations of being reactionary.
QuoteThe dialectical approach simplifies complex social phenomena into binary conflicts.
Is an insult. And very clever.
Dialectics Is Not Binary Reductionism – It's the Opposite
The dialectical method, properly understood, is a dynamic framework for analyzing contradictions without collapsing them into simplistic binaries. Far from being a "simplification," it reveals how apparent opposites interpenetrate, transform, and generate new syntheses through historical movement.