Marxism - An Overview - Summary of Peter Barry - Beginning Theory

 

Marxism – An Overview

 Marxism emerged through the collaborative intellectual work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, two German thinkers whose friendship and shared political concerns shaped a powerful theory of history and society. Marx, originally trained in law, dedicated most of his life to political journalism and philosophical writing. Engels, after leaving Germany, worked in his father’s textile factory in Manchester, where he witnessed the harsh conditions of industrial capitalism first-hand. Their meeting was initiated when Engels read an article by Marx, and from that point their partnership developed into a lifelong scholarly alliance. Together, they produced some of the most influential texts of modern political thought, including The Communist Manifesto in 1848.

At the centre of Marxist doctrine is the vision of a classless society. Marxism argues that social inequality arises from the ownership and control of the means of production. In a capitalist system, a minority class owns land, factories, and machinery, while the majority sell their labour in order to survive. Marxism seeks to abolish this division and replace it with a community in which ownership is shared and exploitation is removed. This perspective is not merely political; it is also philosophical. Marxism offers a distinctive way of examining human life, insisting that social and historical developments are shaped by material conditions rather than abstract ideas.

A key principle within Marxism is the concept of class struggle. Marx proposed that history does not progress smoothly or by chance, but through conflict between classes competing for power and resources. Under capitalism, this conflict takes the form of tension between the bourgeoisie (the owners of production) and the proletariat (the working class). Marx argued that capitalism depends on the exploitation of labour: workers produce goods, yet the profit goes to those who own the factories. This struggle for economic advantage becomes the driving force of historical change.

Another significant idea is that of alienation. Marx observed that industrial labour separates workers from the products of their work, from the creative process, and even from their own sense of self. Workers become cogs in an impersonal system, performing repetitive tasks for the benefit of others. Their labour loses meaning, and their humanity is diminished. This alienation is not accidental; it is built into the structure of capitalism.

Marxism also advances the idea that the economic system — the “base” — shapes all other aspects of society. Culture, politics, religion, and even forms of consciousness are seen as part of a “superstructure” built upon economic foundations. Literature, therefore, cannot be understood in isolation from the economic and social conditions in which it is produced. This belief, called economic determinism, argues that cultural values reflect the interests of the dominant class. What appears natural or universal may, in fact, be shaped by material forces.

Thus, the opening ideas of Marxism present a comprehensive theory of society: history moves through class conflict, labour is alienated under capitalism, and culture reflects economic conditions. These ideas laid the groundwork for later Marxist approaches to literature, which examine how texts represent or conceal class relations and ideological interests.

Class Struggle, Exploitation and Alienation

Marxist criticism rests upon the belief that history develops through conflict between social classes. The competition for power, economic advantage, and social position is not accidental, but the basic motor of historical change. Marx recognises that one class always benefits at the expense of another; in industrial capitalism, this takes the form of the bourgeoisie exploiting the labour of the working class. Profit is achieved not by fair exchange but by extracting surplus value from workers. The modern industrial system, especially in its most intense nineteenth-century form, makes this exploitation more visible, because workers have no ownership over what they produce. They contribute only their labour, yet remain excluded from the wealth created by it.

From this condition arises alienation, a term central to Marxist thought. Workers become “de-skilled” and separated from their labour, as the mechanised process of production reduces their role to mere repetition. They are distanced from the product, from the act of creation, and ultimately from their own human potential. Whereas pre-industrial labour may have allowed direct control over one’s work, industrial capitalism transforms labour into something external, owned by someone else and governed by the demands of profit. Alienation, therefore, is not a psychological accident but a structural result of capitalism.

The simplest Marxist view of society describes it as a base and a superstructure. The base consists of the means of production — land, labour, technology, distribution, and exchange. Cultural forms such as law, religion, art, literature, and ideology are built upon this base. They do not exist independently; rather, they are shaped by the economic system on which they rest. This idea, known as economic determinism, argues that culture reflects the interests of the dominant class. A society’s beliefs, values, and artistic forms are therefore never neutral: they serve the economic forces that sustain society. In this way, literature becomes part of the wider system of power, often supporting it, sometimes challenging it, but never free from it.

Marxist Literary Criticism:

General Principles Although Marx and Engels did not produce a systematic theory of literature, their ideas have had a profound influence on literary studies. Their own comments on art were flexible rather than dogmatic. They admitted that writers may possess freedom of imagination even when living under restrictive conditions. Great art, they believed, could arise from oppressive situations, and literature always bears some trace of the historical circumstances in which it is produced. Engels once remarked that he did not expect a novelist to provide a political commentary, yet he still valued fiction that conveyed the truth of social life.

Marxist literary criticism studies literature in relation to the society that produced it. It examines how texts reveal ideology — the assumptions, values, and beliefs that shape a culture. Ideology is often invisible to those who live within it, because it appears as common sense. Literature, therefore, may reinforce dominant ideology, or it may expose its contradictions. Marxist critics analyse the depiction of class conflict, economic interests, and social hierarchy within texts. Even narrative techniques — such as plot, characterisation, or symbolism — may be examined for what they imply about social relations. The fragmentation and absurdity found in modern writing, for example, are sometimes interpreted as a response to the contradictory pressures of capitalist society.

By placing literature within its historical context, Marxist criticism treats the text not simply as an isolated work of imagination but as part of a larger social process. It seeks to uncover how literature participates in the struggles of its time, consciously or unconsciously. For Marxists, literature reflects the material conditions of its age, and at the same time it contributes to shaping human consciousness.

Leninist Marxist Criticism and Socialist Realism

 A later development of Marxism appeared through the work of Vladimir Lenin and those who followed his political ideas. Lenin stressed that Marxist criticism should not remain a purely intellectual exercise. Instead, literature had to serve the political movement of the working class. Under Lenin and later under Soviet rule, literature became a tool to support the ideology of the state. Writers were encouraged to show the success of workers and the defeat of capitalism.

This approach influenced many writers in Russia and Eastern Europe. Literature had to follow what became known as Socialist Realism. This style presented an idealised picture of workers and socialism. It rejected forms of writing that were considered “bourgeois” or too experimental. For example, writers like James Joyce were criticised because their works did not directly support political goals. The state expected literature to be simple, realistic, and useful for propaganda. Fiction had to show heroic workers, loyal citizens, and the progress of socialism. The focus was on clarity, not artistic freedom.

In this period, two kinds of Marxist criticism grew. One was the Engelsian type, which believed literature should reflect society but did not need to be openly political. The other was Leninist criticism, which demanded a clear political purpose. The latter insisted that literature must support revolutionary aims. The result was often narrow and doctrinaire. It produced writing that repeated political messages rather than exploring complex human experience.

A famous example of this direction is the control exercised by the Soviet Writers’ Union. Writers who did not follow the official line could be punished or silenced. Literature was used as a public weapon. Plays, poetry, and novels were expected to show enthusiasm for the communist future. The main aim was not artistic quality but ideological clarity. This pressure reduced the richness of literature. It made many works sound alike and left little room for creative diversity.

However, some writers resisted these restrictions. They saw literature as more than a political instrument. Their work often explored contradictions, doubts, or personal struggles. These writings did not always reach the public easily because they were censored or criticised. Yet they show another side of Marxist criticism: literature can reveal social injustice not only by praising revolutions, but also by showing suffering, conflict, and complexity.

Marxism and Culture

During these years, a major question arose: should literature be judged only by its political usefulness? Some Marxist critics believed that art has its own value. They argued that great literature could show the truth of society without repeating slogans. Other critics insisted that writers must be loyal to the movement. The tension between these two views shaped much of twentieth-century Marxist criticism.

This period also saw the growth of cultural Marxism. Critics studied how literature reflects deeper conflicts in society. They paid attention to style, language, and symbolism, not only to political content. Instead of forcing literature to make simple statements, they tried to understand how complex social forces appear in stories and characters. In this way, Marxist criticism began to develop a richer approach to art.

Engelsian Criticism and the Role of Reflection

 Marxism continues to influence literary criticism through two main lines of thought. One originates from Engels, who believed that art does not need to be a direct political statement to have value. In this view, literature should reflect life truthfully. A novel may not openly preach socialism, yet it may still show real conditions of society. Engels argued that the best literature reveals the contradictions of its time. Writers do not have to comment on politics in an obvious way. Instead, they can capture real experiences, human relationships, and conflicts that arise from social forces.

This position rejects crude propaganda. A novel is not reduced to a political message. Instead, literature is appreciated for its depth and insight. A realistic portrayal of society can still expose injustice and inequality. This idea supported many writers who wanted freedom of imagination. It allowed them to criticise society indirectly, through characters and situations rather than slogans.

Russian Formalists and Marxism

At the same time, another movement appeared: the Russian Formalists. They were primarily interested in the form of literature. Their attention was on narrative technique, structure, rhythm, and language. For them, the artistic qualities of literature were more important than its political message. They believed that literature could not be reduced to economic or historical explanation.

However, their work soon attracted the criticism of Marxists who felt that form alone could not explain meaning. Literature, they argued, always carried a relation to society. Words and techniques cannot be separated from the culture that produces them. The debate between Formalists and Marxists became intense. Each side defended its territory: the Formalists valued art for art’s sake, while Marxists insisted on social relevance.

This conflict eventually led to a transition. Some critics began to combine both ideas. They studied how literary form could embody social forces. Form was not seen as separate from history, but as shaped by it. This became an important development in twentieth-century criticism.

Louis Althusser and Ideology

In the later twentieth century, the work of the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser provided a new direction. Althusser argued that ideology is not simply false ideas spread by the ruling class. Instead, ideology is something we live within every day. It influences how people think, what they believe, and how they see themselves. Ideology makes certain ideas feel “natural” and unquestioned.

According to Althusser, society uses various institutions to maintain ideology. Schools, media, religion, and even literature become part of this system. They help to reproduce existing values and power structures. Marxist criticism therefore tries to uncover how texts support or resist ideology. Literature may reveal hidden assumptions about class, gender, and power. Althusser shifted the focus from economy alone to culture and language. His work showed that people are shaped by systems they do not always recognise.

This idea strengthened Marxist criticism by giving it a more complex understanding of society. It connected literature not only to economic forces but also to everyday habits of thought. Critics began to study how ideology works through narrative, symbolism, and representation. Instead of looking only for messages, they examined how texts produce meaning through cultural codes. This allowed Marxism to remain useful even in modern literary theory.

Ideology, State Power, and Hegemony

 A major contribution to modern Marxist criticism is the study of power. Marx had linked power directly to ownership of the means of production. Later thinkers expanded this idea. They observed that power is not only maintained by force. It is also maintained through consent. People may accept the existing system because it appears natural. They do not always realise that it serves the interests of a ruling group.

Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, developed the concept of hegemony to explain this process. Hegemony is the way dominant groups win consent from the ruled. They do this not by physical force, but by influencing culture. Education, religion, literature, and mass media are used to shape beliefs and attitudes. If society accepts these beliefs, then the power of the ruling class remains stable. People may not see their own oppression because they share the values that oppress them.

Literature plays an important part in this process. It can reflect dominant ideology by presenting social relations as natural or inevitable. For instance, stories that glorify wealth, authority, or tradition may support the values of the ruling class. On the other hand, literature may challenge ideology. It can reveal conflicts, injustice, or absurdity. The task of the Marxist critic is to read texts carefully and identify how they participate in hegemony.

Gramsci’s idea is especially useful because it explains why revolutions do not occur easily. People often consent to the very systems that limit them. Hegemony is subtle. It works through common sense, moral values, and cultural habits. Literature becomes a field where this struggle is visible. Novels, plays, and poems may either maintain consent or question it. Marxist criticism looks for signs of resistance or complicity in literary texts.

State Apparatus and Ideological Apparatus

Louis Althusser extended this thinking by identifying two kinds of apparatus through which power operates. The first is the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA). This includes the police, army, courts, and prisons. These institutions enforce order through force or threat. The state uses them when consent fails.

The second is the Ideological State Apparatus (ISA). This includes education, religion, family, the media, and cultural institutions. These work more quietly. They shape ideas, values, and behaviour, so that people accept the existing system. Althusser stated that ideology is not merely imposed from outside. Individuals participate in it. We recognise ourselves in the values that the system offers, and so we help to reproduce them.

This view changes the role of literature. Texts are no longer seen simply as products of individual imagination. They are part of the ideological apparatus. They may repeat dominant values, or they may expose hidden contradictions. The critic must ask: what assumptions are present? What kind of world is shown as normal? Which voices are heard, and which are silenced?

Althusser’s ideas made Marxist criticism more attentive to language, representation, and unconscious processes. The relationship between literature and society became more complex. A text was no longer judged only by its political message but by how it constructs meaning and how readers participate in ideology.

Consent and Culture

 The study of hegemony and ideology encouraged critics to take culture seriously. Culture is not separate from politics. It is one of the main places where power is exercised. For Marxist critics, every cultural object, from popular novels to advertising, offers clues. They show what society values and what it hides. They reveal tensions between classes, genders, or identities.

This approach made Marxist criticism especially relevant to modern literary studies. It became possible to analyse not only canonical works but also popular culture. Both high art and mass entertainment could be examined for ideological effects. The question was no longer simply “What does this text say?” but “What social assumptions does this text depend on, support, or question?”

Marxism and Literature: Method and Purpose

 Marxist literary criticism is not concerned only with political statements inside a text. Its central interest is the relationship between literature and society. Literature is seen as part of the historical process. It reflects the material conditions of its time, yet it may also challenge them. Marxist critics examine how texts reveal social conflict, economic tensions, and ideological assumptions. They do not treat literature as a private activity separate from life. Instead, literature is understood as a cultural practice that participates in social struggle.

A Marxist critic begins with the question of class. Who benefits from the world of the text? Whose viewpoint dominates? Who is excluded? These questions allow the critic to uncover hidden structures of power. Marxism also studies how characters relate to work, property, and social hierarchy. Even language and imagery may reveal ideological patterns. A novel may present wealth and authority as normal, or it may expose their contradictions. The critic looks for such signs and interprets them in a larger social context.

However, Marxist criticism does not reduce literature to economics alone. Instead, it sees literature as a complex form of consciousness. A text may show conflicts that society itself cannot solve. Fiction often reveals contradictions more clearly than everyday speech. The result is a deeper understanding of lived experience. Marxist criticism therefore takes literature seriously, not as propaganda but as a form of truth.

Example: Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night

 The comedy Twelfth Night is usually seen as a light, festive play, filled with celebration and disguise. Yet a Marxist critic will look for the economic and social structures beneath this festive surface. The world of Illyria, where the action takes place, appears playful, but it is organised by class privilege. Wealth and status determine relationships. Characters move within a hierarchy that seems natural, but it supports the power of the aristocracy.

In Twelfth Night, only those of high birth are allowed to enjoy freedom and romance. Olivia, Orsino, and Viola belong to a wealthy class. They can follow desire and emotion. Their problems are personal, not economic. Beneath them, however, stands Malvolio, whose role reveals the limits of class mobility. He is a steward who dreams of rising above his rank by marrying Olivia. His ambition is mocked. The comic plot punishes him for trying to cross class boundaries. The festive tone hides a harsh lesson: those who challenge the hierarchy will be humiliated.

From a Marxist perspective, the play reinforces the existing order. Celebration is granted only to the aristocracy. The servants, the lower classes, and Malvolio himself do not share in the happy ending. The comedy restores the social structure. Class divisions are not changed; they are made to appear natural and inevitable. In this way, the play supports hegemony. It offers pleasure and laughter, yet within a world where privilege is preserved.

This example demonstrates how a Marxist reading can uncover the ideological function of a traditional text. The play does not discuss economics openly, yet its structure supports an economic system. Comedy becomes a form through which social norms are confirmed.

Conclusion

Marxism has shaped modern literary criticism by insisting that literature is part of a wider social and historical process. It recognises that culture expresses the interests of classes, and that texts participate in ideology. From Engels to Gramsci and Althusser, Marxist theory has developed different methods, but the basic questions remain constant: How does literature reflect society? How does it support or challenge power?

Marxist criticism today continues to examine texts for signs of class conflict, domination, and resistance. It studies how meaning is produced not only through stories and characters, but through institutions, culture, and ideology. Literature is never neutral. It belongs to history, and it helps us see the forces that shape human life.