Although Marxist concepts in literary criticism are not as popular as they once were, they are still frequently used in trying to understand Shakespeare and his genius better and so it is worthwhile to try to understand what they are and what they mean. Marxism was named after Karl Marx who, himself, was very fond of the work of Shakespeare and often quoted from it out of pleasure at the language and dramatic structure or to make a political point. Marxism, to simplify it somewhat and to ignore the many developments in the thought in subsequent years, rests upon the understanding that the world and the society depends fundamentally upon economic factors. Within the world of capitalist economics, a struggle is taking place between different social classes, which include peasants, the proletariat (industrial workers), the bourgeoisie (middle classes who benefit from the capitalist system without consciously supporting or assisting it) and capital-owners (who do consciously support and assist it). Marx believed that this struggle of the classes would inevitably lead to the victory of the proletariat and the defeat of capitalism, since capitalism ‘contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction’ which we can see by the various economic recessions and crashes.

Critics who take a Marxist viewpoint, therefore, look to see how Shakespeare was able to draw upon these ideas in his work and whether he was, so to speak, on the right side (i.e. the proletariat rather than the capital-owners). In this vein, therefore, Marxist critics of Shakespeare look at plays with revolutions or outbreaks of rebelliousness such as the first part of Henry VI and Julius Caesar and consider the reason for these events and the ways they are suppressed. They look at struggles between the high and mighty (for example in Coriolanus or Macbeth) as struggles for power by capitalists who only exist as viable members of society through suppression of the working classes. Repression takes place through Repressive State Apparatus (e.g. the use of force by police and army) and through Ideological State Apparatus (e.g. religion, worship of kings, education). Additionally, romances between characters are analysed in terms of their reliance upon economic factors rather than emotional factors such as love. Miranda in The Tempest, for example, falls in love with the first man she sees who is not her father or the monstrous Caliban – could such love have a meaningful human factor or is it a representation of Miranda’s desire to escape from a society dominated by her father and keen to take anyone as a husband for the sake of economic freedom? Similarly, the romance between the eponymous Henry V and the French princess may be considered as, instead of a tender romance between young lovers, a means by which the ruling classes reproduce power systems in the next generation by which they can continue to rule in the same way that they have done in the past.

Marxist critics will not that, coming several centuries before Marx was in fact born, it is hardly to be expected that Shakespeare would be able to elucidate all the complexities of the class struggle without access to Marxist thought. Consequently, this helps explains the other parts of the plays and poetry that do not work well with Marxist analysis. On the other hand, careful scrutiny of Shakespeare’s work as a whole has persuaded many influential critics that the author had no overwhelming philosophical position so much as he had understanding and sympathy for human beings in all walks of life.