Marxist Criticism

3

Marxist criticism

Marxism is not a viable theory. Communities societies which are based on the principles developed by Karl Marx (1818-1883) have been oligarchies in which a small group of leaders controls the money and the guns and forces it’s polices on a population kept in the line through physical pressure. Even if communist countries were true Marxist societies and even if all of them had failed, Marxist theory would still give a meaningful way to understand history and current events. One could use Marxist to interpret the failure of Marxist regimes.

Fundamental premises of Marxism

For Marxism, generating and keeping economic power is the motive behind all social and political activities, including education, philosophy, religion, government, the arts, science, technology, and the media and so on. Economic is the “base” on which the “superstructure” of social/political/ideological realities is built. Economic power always includes social and political power as well. So, many Marxist today refer to socioeconomic class, rather than economic class, when talking about the class-structure.

In Marxist terminology, economic conditions are referred to as ‘material’ circumstances and the social/political/ideological atmosphere generated by material conditions is called the ‘historical’ situation. For Marxist critics, neither human events nor human productions can be understood without understanding the specific material/historical circumstances in which those events and productions occur. All human events and productions have specific material/historical causes. An accurate picture of human affairs cannot be obtained by the search for abstract, timeless essences or principles but only by understanding concrete conditions in the world. Therefore, Marxist analysis of human events and productions focuses on relationship among socioeconomic classes within and among the societies and it explains all human activities in terms of the distribution and dynamics of economic power. Marxist methodology dictates that theoretical ideas can be judges to have value only in terms of their concrete application.

From a Marxist perspective, differences in socioeconomic class divide people in ways that are much more significant than differences in religion, race, ethnicity or gender. For the real battle lines are drawn between the “haves” and the “have-not”, between the “bourgeoisie”- those who control the world’s naturals, economic and human resources, and the “proletariat”, the majority of the global population who live in substandard conditions and who have always performed the manual labor. Marxist today believed that the proletariat will one day spontaneously develop the class consciousness needed to rise up in violent revolution against their oppressors and create a classless society.

  The class system in America

It is become difficult in the United States to clearly place people either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. In this country some workers earn more than some owners. The words ‘bourgeoisie’(noun) and ‘bourgeois’(adjective) have come to refer in everyday speech to the middle class in general, with no distinction between owners and wage earners. It might be more useful to classify Americans according to socioeconomic lifestyle without reference to the manner in which their income is acquired. To understand which individual belong to the bourgeoisie and which to the proletariat we can observe the differences in socioeconomic lifestyle of following five groups: 1) the homeless, who have few material possessions and little hope of improvement, 2) the poor, whose limited educational and career opportunities keep them struggling to support their families and living in fear of becoming homeless, 3) the financially established who own nice homes and cars and can usually afford to send their children to college, 4) the well-to-do, who can afford two or more expensive homes, several cars, and luxury items, and 5) the extremely wealthy; such as the owners of large, well-established corporations, for whom money is no problem whatsoever. We might refer to these five groups as America’s ‘underclass’, ‘lower class’, ‘middle class’, ‘upper class’ and ‘aristocracy’.

Member of the underclass and the lower class are economically oppressed. They suffer the ills of economic privation. They are hardest hit by economic recessions and have limited means of improving their lot. In contrast, member of the upper class and ‘aristocracy’ are economically privileged. They enjoy luxurious lifestyles. They are least affected by economic recessions and have a great deal of financial security. The socioeconomic lifestyle of middle class is certainly better that of the classes below them. They have more financial stability than the lower classes. They are often hard hit by economic recessions and usually have good reason to worry about their financial future. They benefit from institutionalized forms of economic security. For the poor and homeless in America today, the struggle to survive is certainly a factor in keeping them down. The elements oppressing them are the police and other government strong-man agencies, who have mistreated lower-class and underclass poor perceived as a threat to the power structure. The poor are oppressed even more effectively by ideology.

The role of ideology

For Marxism, an ideology is a belief system. All belief systems are products of cultural conditioning. For example, capitalism, communism, Marxism, patriotism, religion, ethical system, humanism, environmentalism, astrology, and karate all are ideologies. Our assumption that nature behaves according to the law of science is an ideology. Any experience or field of study we can think of has an ideological component. All ideologies are not equally productive or desirable. Undesirable ideologies promote repressive political agendas. Repressive ideologies prevent us from understanding the material/historical conditions in which we live because they refuse to acknowledge that those conditions have any bearing on the way we see the world. Marxism is a non-repressive ideology. Marxism makes us aware of all the ways in which we are products of material/historical circumstances and of the repressive ideologies. Marxist theories differ in their estimation of the degree to which we are “programmed” by ideology. The most successful ideologies are not recognized as ideologies but are thought to be natural ways of seeing the world by the people who subscribe to them. The economic interests of middle class America would best be served by a political alliance with the poor in order to attain a more equitable distribution of America’s enormous wealth among the middle and lower classes. The middle class generally sides with the wealthy against the poor.

The middle class tends to dislike the poor because so much middle class tax money goes to government to help the poor. The middle class fails to realize two important socioeconomic realities: 1) it is the wealthy in positions of power, who decide who pays the most taxes and how the money will be spent, and 2) the poor receive but a small portion of the funds earmarked for them. The middle class is blinded by their belief in “American Dream”, which tells them that financial success is simply the product of hard work. Marxist analysis reveals that the American dream is an ideology as a belief system not an innate or natural way of seeing the world. All ideologies support the socioeconomic inequalities of capitalist countries where the means of production i.e. natural, financial and human resources are privately owned. It is the power of ideology that has blinded us to the harsh realities it makes.

From Marxist point of view, ‘classism’ is an ideology that equates one’s value as a human being with the social class to which one belongs. From a classist perspective, people at the top of the social scale are naturally superior to those below them. Those at the top are more intelligent, more responsible, more trustworthy, and more ethical and so on. People at the bottom of the social scale are naturally shiftiness, lazy, and irresponsible. It is right and natural that those from the highest social class should hold the positions of power and leadership because they are naturally suited to such roles and are the only ones who can be trusted to perform them properly. ‘Patriotism’ is an ideology that keeps poor people fighting wars against poor people from other countries while the rich on both sides collect in the profits of war-time economy. Because patriotism leads the poor to see themselves as members of a nation rather than as members of a worldwide oppressed class opposed to all privileged classes including those from their own country. ‘Religion’ which Karl Marx called “the opiate of the masses” is an ideology that helps to keep the faithful poor satisfied with their lot in life. The question of God’s existence is not the fundamental issue for Marxism analysis rather what human beings do in God’s name i.e. ‘organized religion’ is the focus. For example many Christian religious groups work to feed, clothe, house, educate the world’s poor; the religious tents include the conviction that the poor will find their reward in heaven. The 10 percent of the world’s population who own 90 percent of the world’s wealth have a interest in promoting this aspect of Christian belief among the poor and historically have exploited Christianity for just this purpose.

‘Rugged individualism’ which is a cornerstone of the American dream is an ideology that romanticizes the individual who strikes out alone in pursuit of a goal not easily achieved. Marxist thinkers consider rugged individualism an oppressive ideology because it puts self-interest above the needs, even above the survival of other people. By keeping the focus on “me” instead of on “us”, rugged individualism works against the well-being of society as a whole. Rugged individualism also gives us the illusion that we make our own decisions without being significantly influenced by ideology of any sort. We’re all significantly influenced by various ideologies all the time. ‘Consumerism’ is another cornerstone of the American dream. Consumerism is an ideology that says “I’m only as good as what I buy”. It fulfills two ideological purposes: it gives us the illusion that I can be ‘as good as’ the wealthy if I can purchase what they purchase and it fills the coffers of the wealthy who manufacture and sell the consumer products I buy.

The goal of the Marxist critics is to identify the ideology at work in cultural productions- literature, films, paintings, popular philosophy, religion, forms of entertainment and so on- and to analyze how that ideology supports or undermines the socio-economic system in which that cultural production plays a significant role. Marxists believe that all social phenomena from child rearing-practices to environmental concerns are cultural productions and that culture cannot be separated from the socio-economic system that produced it.   

Human behavior, the commodity, and the family

The later works of Karl Marx focus on economic rather than on the individual. Marx’s concern over the raise of a capitalist economy was a concern for the effects of capitalism on human values. In a capitalist economy system, an object’s value becomes impersonal. Its values is translated into a monetary ‘equivalent’ and determined solely in terms of its relationship to a monetary market. The focus of the Marxist, on the ways in which, ideology is transmitted through popular culture and operates in our emotional lives. Many Marxists insights into human behavior involve the damaging effects of capitalism on human psychology. Those damaging effects often appear in our relationship to the commodity. An object becomes a commodity only when it has ‘exchange value’ or ‘sign-exchange value’, and both forms of value are determined by the society in which the object is exchanged. ‘Commodification’ is the act of relating to objects or persons in terms of their exchange value or sign-exchange value.

From Marxist perspective, the survival of capitalism is depending on consumerism. Capitalism’s constant need for new markets in which to sell goods and for new sources of raw materials from which to make goods is also responsible for the spread of ‘imperialism’. Imperialism is the military, economic or cultural domination of one nation by another for the financial benefit of the dominating nation with little or no concern for the welfare of the dominated. Spain’s rule of Mexico, England’s domination of India is the example of imperialist activities. It is important to understand capitalism is the way in which consciousness can be “colonized” by imperialist governments. To ‘colonize’ the consciousness of subordinate peoples means to convince them to see their situation. The imperialist nation wants to convince them that they are mentally, spiritually, and culturally inferior to their conquerors and that their lot will be improved under the “guidance” and “protection” of their new leaders. The attempt to colonize consciousness can be practiced against us by our own culture.

For Marxism, the family is not the source of the individual’s psychological identity. The individual and the family are the products of material/historical circumstances. The family unconsciously carries out the cultural “program” in raising its children, but the program is produced by the socioeconomic culture within which the family operates. Marxist critics examine the family conflicts and psychological wounds as a product of the ideological forces carried by films, fashion, art, music, education, and law. Marxist critics will show us the ways in which family dysfunctions are themselves products of the socioeconomic system and the ideologies it promotes.

Marxist and literature

In every field of Marxism there is a great deal of disagreement among Marxist theorists and literary critics concerning the formation and role of class solidarity among proletariat, the role of the media in manipulating our political consciousness, the relationship between ideology and psychology. 

For Marxism, literature is a product of socio-economic and ideological conditions of the time and place in which it was written because human beings are themselves products of their socioeconomic and ideological environment. The literature grows out of and reflects real material/historical conditions create two possibilities of interest to Marxist critics: 1) the literary work might tend to reinforce in the reader the ideologies it embodies or 2) it might invite the reader to criticize the ideologies it represents. Text is not merely the content of a literary work or the action that carries ideology but it is the “form”. Realism, naturalism, surrealism, symbolism, romanticism, modernism, postmodernism, tragedy, comedy, satire, interior monologue, stream of consciousness and other genres and literary devices are the means by which ‘form’ is constituted. Realism gives us characters and plot as if we were looking through a window onto an actual scene taking place before our eyes. Our attention is drawn not to the nature of the words on the page but to the action these words convey. We frequently forget the words we’re reading and the way the narrator is structured is we “get lost” in the story. For some Marxist, realism is the best form for Marxist purposes because it clearly and accurately represents the real world, with all its socioeconomic inequalities and ideological conditions, and encourages readers to see the unhappy truths about material/historical reality.

Although Marxists have long disagreed about what kinds of works are most useful in promoting social awareness and positive political change, many today believes that even those literary works that reinforce capitalist, imperialist, or other classist values are useful in that they can show us how these ideologies work to seduce or force us into involvement with their repressive ideological agendas.