Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Karl Marx's class theory derives from a range of philosophical schools of thought including left Hegelianism, Scottish Empiricism, and Anglo-French political-economics.. Marx's view of class originated from a series of personal interests relating to social alienation and human struggle, whereby the formation of class structure relates to acute historical consciousn
Marx's "base determines superstructure" axiom, however, requires qualification: the base is the whole of productive relationships, not only a given economic element, e.g. the working class; historically, the superstructure varies and develops unevenly in society's different activities; for example, art, politics, economics, etc.
While the term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense, to discuss the application of Marxist ideas in the cultural field, [11] [43] [44] the variant term "Cultural Marxism" generally refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Although Marx and Engels wrote very little on socialism and neglected to provide any details on how it might be organized, [7] numerous social scientists and neoclassical economists have used Marx's theory as a basis for developing their own models of socialist economic systems. The Marxist view of socialism served as a point of reference ...
In the Marxist theory of historical materialism, a mode of production (German: Produktionsweise, "the way of producing") is a specific combination of the: . Productive forces: these include human labour power and means of production (tools, machinery, factory buildings, infrastructure, technical knowledge, raw materials, plants, animals, exploitable land).
Classical Marxism is the body of economic, philosophical, and sociological theories expounded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their works, as contrasted with orthodox Marxism, Marxism–Leninism, and autonomist Marxism which emerged after their deaths. [1]
The theory of the Asiatic mode of production (AMP) was devised by Karl Marx around the early 1850s. The essence of the theory has been described as "[the] suggestion ... that Asiatic societies were held in thrall by a despotic ruling clique, residing in central cities and directly expropriating surplus from largely autarkic and generally undifferentiated village communities".
The criticisms were mostly around the model's inability to cope with the real constraints of the economy, in ignoring the fundamental choice problems of planning over time and the lack of connection between the model and the actual selection of projects for governmental expenditure.