The theory of Marxist criticism functions essentially as an adjunct to Karl Marx's greater theory of history. On this view, it has been the lot of humankind to devise various responses to the "material conditions of life," these being the myriad gradations of economic existence that perpetuate need (Marx 161-2). The distinct implication of this idea is simply that human history is merely economic history, and that conscious life cannot precede social life: how human beings survive determines how they think, and as consequence of this, needs determine ideas (Berlin 117). This principle can of course be made relevant to philosophy as well as economics, and a look at Jean-Paul Sartre through the lens of the Marxist critic will perhaps be useful in understanding this concept.
As it pertains to a literary and cultural analysis, the Marxist method of criticism will assume that the consciousness of "a given class at a given historical moment" will also derive from the "modes of material production" (Henderson & Brown). In other words, human needs reflect a status quo; that these needs are unique to a given time and place in human history may be difficult to perceive from within that time and place, and this may lead one to misconstrue the human condition. Philosophical attempts to universalize the status quo fail to see that what appears to be "natural" or "universal" is often simply "historical"ùthe product of a unique time and a unique historical inheritance.
Put simply, the theory of Marxist criticism views literary works as the product of labor. Naturally then, the Marxist critic will regard a text as a material product to be understood in broadly historical terms. Why was the product made? Who made it? What were the conditions surrounding its "manufacture"? What sort of social organization will presuppose the making of such a work? What need did this work fulfill? These questions, when applied to philosophers or...