Marxism explains how economic factors and class struggle shape actions and institutions.

Which political theory states that human actions and institutions are driven by economic factors and class struggle?

• A. Absenteeism
• B. Marxism
• C. Empiricism
• D. Utilitarianism

Answer: (B)

Marxism is the political theory that profoundly emphasizes the role of economic factors and class struggle in shaping human actions and institutions. This theory, established by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, posits that the economic structure of society underpins its social, political, and ideological superstructure. According to Marxism, history is characterized by the struggles between different social classes, primarily between the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production) and the proletariat (the working class). This perspective highlights how economic conditions influence societal behaviors, relationships, and institutional developments, reinforcing the idea that economic power leads to political and cultural power. The other theories, while significant in their own rights, do not focus specifically on economic factors and class struggle. Absenteeism relates to individuals' nonparticipation or attendance in activities, typically in a work or educational context. Empiricism is a philosophical theory that emphasizes knowledge coming from sensory experience, rather than economic influences or class struggle. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that evaluates actions based on their outcomes, particularly the principle of maximizing happiness, but it does not specifically address the impact of economic structures and class dynamics.

How ideas about money and power shape the world around us

Let’s start with a simple question that sneaks into everyday life more often than we admit: why do laws and customs feel like they’re built to benefit certain groups? The answer, in many classrooms and theory discussions, comes down to how people explain the link between money, power, and social life. One well-known way is a theory called Marxism. In short, Marxism says that human actions and the big institutions we build—things like schools, courts, and political systems—are driven by economic factors and the struggles between social classes.

Here’s the thing: this isn’t just a dated old idea. It shows up in how we read newspapers, analyze policy, and understand history. When you’re looking at a region’s wealth, how factories are run, or who decides what gets funded, Marxist thinking asks a provocative question: what if money and class shape not only what we do, but also what we think and believe?

What Marxism is trying to explain

Marxism comes from two thinkers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who lived in a time of rapid industrial change. They didn’t just want to tell a story about rich people and poor people. They wanted to map how the economy—the way people make a living and organize production—sets the stage for politics, culture, and even your day-to-day choices.

Here’s the core idea in plain terms:

• The economic base shapes the superstructure. The base includes things like factories, land, money, and the jobs people do. The superstructure is everything built on top of that: laws, education, religion, media, and government.

• History moves through class struggle. Society develops because different groups have different stakes in the economic system. The big push and pull between owners of production (the bourgeoisie) and workers (the proletariat) drives change.

• Power follows money. When a small group has access to the key economic resources, they tend to shape laws, policies, and culture to protect those resources.

A quick, sturdy picture: imagine the economy as a backbone. The rest of society—where people go to school, what gets funded, what counts as “normal” or “fair”—sits on top of that backbone. If the backbone leans toward one group, the rest of the body tends to lean that way too.

Real-world echoes you can relate to

You don’t have to be a philosopher to see traces of this thinking in daily life. A few practical examples help make it click:

• Workplace realities. When pay and bargaining power are tightly tied to who owns the means of production, it’s not just about wages. It’s about who has leverage in meetings, who gets promotions, and who sets the company’s priorities. That’s the economic engine shaping decisions, often way before a policy paper lands on a desk.

• Education and access. Where schools are funded from local taxes creates a clear connection between wealth and opportunity. Communities with more resources can invest in better facilities, more teachers, and programs that give students a boost. The underlying current here is economic structure shaping educational outcomes and, by extension, future life chances.

• Media and culture. Ownership matters. When a few entities control what information gets amplified, the stories we see and hear can reflect those power dynamics. That doesn’t mean every news item is a conspiracy; it means money and influence help steer what counts as news and whose voices are heard.

Marxism isn’t the only way to read society, though

When we compare Marxism with other big ideas, you’ll see different lenses at work. Let me explain with a quick contrast, using four options you might encounter in a social studies discussion or in the material you’re studying for the content area.

• Absenteeism (not in the same sentence as politics, but it sometimes pops up in discussions of behavior). Absenteeism is about participation or attendance. It isn’t primarily about money or class; it’s more about choices, motivations, or practical barriers. It’s useful to explain certain patterns, but it doesn’t center economic structure the way Marxism does.

• Empiricism. This is more about how we know things: knowledge comes from experience and evidence. It’s a method of learning rather than a theory of society’s power dynamics. Empiricism helps us test ideas, including Marxist ones, with data from the real world.

• Utilitarianism. This ethical framework asks, “What action leads to the greatest good for the greatest number?” It’s focused on outcomes and happiness. It’s a handy tool for weighing policies, but it doesn’t automatically tie those outcomes to who owns resources or how class tensions push history forward.

• Marxism. The focus here is on economic structure and class relations as the engine behind social, political, and cultural life. It asks what resources people hold, who has power to shape institutions, and how those arrangements reproduce themselves over time.

Why this matters for anyone studying social studies

If you’re learning about how societies work, Marxism offers a way to connect several big threads:

• Economic systems and political power aren’t separate. They’re two sides of the same coin. When you study government policy, look for who benefits financially from it and who bears the costs.

• History isn’t a string of random events. It’s a story of changing power—who gains, who loses, and how wealth makes a difference in what gets built or preserved.

• Critical thinking is essential. When you read a source, ask: who benefits from this interpretation? whose voice is missing? What economic or class dynamics could explain the author’s point of view?

A gentle digression that helps the idea land

Think about a city neighborhood where a new mall pops up. The project brings jobs and buzz, but it can also push out longtime residents through higher rents and changing services. A Marxist lens would push you to ask: who owns the land? who benefits from the new traffic and the tax revenue? who bears the costs—like displacement or shifting cultural character? It’s not about blaming individuals. It’s about tracing the web of relationships—where money and power concentrate—and what that means for everyday life.

A few practical ways to think about this theory in class or in your own study notes

• Map the base and the superstructure in a case you care about. Take a country, a city, or a workplace and sketch how economic factors might influence laws, education, and media.

• Look for patterns across time. Do shifts in wealth or ownership coincide with changes in policy or culture? If you can spot a pattern, you’re picking up a key Marxist insight: economic structure helps steer the rest of society.

• Compare explanations. When you read about a social controversy, try to test it against different theories. Does the story feel more complete if you view it through a lens of class struggle, or does an empirical approach explain it better? Or maybe a mix of both works best.

A friendly note on terminology

If you’re new to these ideas, some terms can feel heavy. Here are a couple of quick reminders to keep things clear:

• Bourgeoisie and proletariat: not just fancy words. They signal two sides of the economic coin—the owners and the workers who sell their labor.

• Base and superstructure: the base is the economic layer; the superstructure is everything built on top of it, including laws, culture, and institutions.

• Historical materialism: a mouthful, but it just means the idea that history unfolds through material conditions—money, production, and how people relate to them.

Pulling it together

Marxism offers a readable map for understanding how money and power ripple through society. It invites us to trace connections from the factory floor to the classroom, from a policy debate to the daily choices people make about work and life. It’s not the only lens worth using, but it’s a sturdy compass for anyone who wants to grasp why certain patterns repeat and why some solutions feel more urgent than others.

If you’re exploring this topic in depth, you’ll also encounter other viewpoints that illuminate different angles. The goal isn’t to pick a side and stop thinking; it’s to keep your eyes open and your questions honest. How does money shape the rules we live by? Who gets a seat at the table when those rules are written? And how might a deeper understanding of economic power help us imagine fairer communities?

A closing thought

The next time you notice a decision that affects a city or a classroom, pause for a moment and ask: who benefits from this arrangement, and who pays the price? You don’t need a border-crossing theory to answer that. But if you want a lens that makes those questions feel natural and essential, Marxism offers one that’s still living, breathing, and definitely worth exploring.

If you’d like, we can dive into a few concrete case studies—like how housing, education, or media ownership illustrate the dynamics Marxism highlights. Or we can compare it with other theories through a set of guided questions to help you think critically about sources and evidence. Either way, the goal is clarity, relevance, and a richer understanding of the social world you’re studying in the Integrated Social Studies content area.