Marxism takes Karl Marx's framework as the starting point for understanding capitalism, class and historical change. The way a society organizes production shapes its politics, law and ideas; capitalism generates its wealth through a class relation and not merely alongside one; and the resulting order is historically specific, not natural.
Marx and Engels set out the political program in The Communist Manifesto (1848), but the analytical core is Capital (1867) and the manuscripts around it. After Marx's death the tradition institutionalized in the parties of the Second International, which read history as lawlike and revolution as something to be awaited. Lenin broke with that patience, insisting on a vanguard party and the conquest of state power. The 1917 split between revolutionary and reformist socialism has shaped every argument in the tradition since.
Western Marxism formed in reaction to both. Lukács recovered alienation and reification. Gramsci developed hegemony to explain why capitalist societies were held together by consent instead of force. The Frankfurt School turned to culture and ideology. Later strands diverged further: Althusser's structuralism, the analytical Marxism of Cohen, Roemer and Elster rebuilding the arguments on individualist foundations, the autonomists rejecting party organization entirely, and a school of historians in Thompson and Hobsbawm whose lasting influence has been methodological more than political.
The tradition carries a debt it has not settled. Regimes founded in Marx's name killed on an enormous scale, and Marxists disagree fundamentally about whether that was a betrayal of the analysis or an outcome it made available. Economists largely regard the labor theory of value as superseded. What has survived best is the apparatus, not the predictions. Most contemporary Marxists are scholars and critics, and concepts like ideology, class structure and commodification are now used routinely by people who reject the politics entirely.
