Marxism!

Or: “Why The Illiterate, Jabbering Masses Will One

Day Rise Up, Destroy Starbucks, and Install a

Utopia of Maximum Utility!”

This is Karl Marx

He smoked cigars, hung out a operas, and frequently asked people for the secret word.

Ha ha, not really! See what you get with a public education?

The real Karl Marx, of course, had nothing in common with Groucho Marx other than questionable choice in facial hair. It should also be pointed out, before we go any further, that Marx’s theories are ONLY theories; feel free to discard or disprove aspects you find outdated or illogical.

Marx lived from 1818 until 1883. During his life, he became associated with revolution as a result of clashing

social classes.Any analysis of

revolutions can benefit from consideration of his philosophies of Historical Change!Human nature!The relationship of man to his labor!Having a very merry Christmas!

A major tenet of Marx’s philosophy is a concept called dialecticism, a theory

influenced by his mentor, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Broadly stated, dialecticism views all historical change as an ongoing process where a current model (the thesis) is challenged by its inequities or deficiencies (the antithesis). The two forces collide and create a new model—the synthesis!

Watch dialecticism work!

Idealistic, but indecisive

presidential policies

(the thesis)

+Endless demoralizing

hostage crisis

(the antithesis)

=Take charge President!

(the synthesis)

Idealistic, but indecisive

presidential policies

(the thesis)

+Endless demoralizing

terror crisis

(the antithesis)

=Take charge President!

(the synthesis)

It is through this dialectical process, Marx theorized, that all of historical change takes

place. Indeed, dialectical change is central to all human

activity!

This theory of change helps explain Marx’s ideas about Labor

Marx believed that humans have the capacity to transform their circumstances. He called the process of transformation “labor” and the capacity to transform circumstances “labor power.”

I will transform this clogged

flushing apparatus with

my labor power!

Now, a person’s labor starts off as his own– you work for yourself to produce your own goods to survive

Oh! And look, there’s you, working in the garden! Go little gardener!

…aaaaand here’s you again, harvesting your crops! Mmm, someone’s eating wheat tonight!

Look, here you are planting some seeds. Cute outfit!

As long as a person owns his own labor, he is satisfied physically and spiritually

But… humans don’t always own their own labor. Sometimes, someone else owns the resources necessary to produce goods—these are the means of production.

Means of production can

include:

Land

Resources

Tools

Without the means of production, a person can’t satisfy his needs. So he trades his labor.

A man agrees to trade his labor for the means to fulfill his needs—physical and spiritual. Marx

called this arrangement the social relations of production.

The social relations of production is not only between individuals—Marx also used this term to describe the relationship between classes.Thus, landowners are a class, and tenant workers are a class.

Landowner

Workers

If enough people in a society rely on the same social relation of production, it becomes a mode of production, or

economic model for that society.Some well-known modes of production…

Feudalism Slavery Capitalism

Build your own Mode of Production!

This is you! This is a wealthy land owner. He owns… uh… land… and resources,

plus tools.

+ +You must work to feed yourself and

because producing something for

yourself makes you happy.

He controls the means of production.

You decide on an agreement. You will supply your labor, for which he will pay you and allow you access to the means of production. Whatever you produce with your labor, he will sell. This is a social relation of production.

The land owner becomes more wealthy and controls more means of production. He hires others like you to increase his wealth.

Eventually, other wealthy landowners with means of production will catch on and set up similar social relations of production. Together, this will eventually become a mode of production.

+ +

“Uh… Mr. Teacher, sir? What does this have to do with Sophie’s World?

“Well, Billy. I’m so glad you asked

that!”

It has to do with the idea of revolution—or the dialectic conflict that produces

synthesisMarx believed that as men became further and further separated from the product of their labor, they became alienated.For instance, a man who grows his own crops feeds himself and has the satisfaction of producing something. But a man who works in a factory to produce goods that he does not use, sell, or profit from feels spiritually empty.

In addition to the spiritual alienation, the man also becomes increasingly dependent on the individual who controls the means of production.

After all, labor is cheap and replaceable—and why pay $0.50 for it when there are poorer men who will do it for $0.25?Meanwhile, the laborer becomes no wealthier and is no closer to controlling the means of production. His condition becomes increasingly dire, and he begins to believe that the system he works for, not his own labor, is the true power in the world. This phenomenon is called commodity fetishism.

The Grapes of Wrath

Of course, those who control the means of production are only too happy to nurture this belief.

The dominant class will put forth a system of belief—an ideology—that acts as a means of control of the lower classes. The goal, of course, is to maintain favorable class distinctions while increasing influence and wealth.

In Marx’s view, these ideologies—or false consciousnesses—took a variety of forms, from propaganda to religion to mass entertainment. The goal, however, was always the same—to distract the lower classes from their true power, which would allow them overthrow the ruling order—revolution!

…And here’s where the revolution comes in:

Take one ruling class controlling all the means of production (say, the 1st and 2nd estate…)

+Thesis!

A repressed lower class alienated from their labor, choking on ideology and commodity fetishism (Let’s call them the 3rd estate…)

Antithesis!=?

Revolution!!!!

Marx believed that the long-term consequence of capitalistic society—such as France—was the empowerment of the

ruling class over the workers—the proletariat.

A violent revolution was required to overthrow this system.Marx believed that once the proletariat controlled the means of production, they would encourage social relations that would benefit everyone equally.

Was Marx correct?

Well, it’s tough to say. One of the major criticisms of Marx’s theories is that they are not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

Capitalism will fall to class

revolt!!! Bwa ha ha!

This has not happened. (I’m

Karl Popper, Marxist critic, by

the way!)

It will happen! You’ll see, you ridiculously

named bourgeois puppet!

Marx’s theories are, however, a useful means of analyzing

literatureYou can use the theories to understand the motivations of characters by identifying them as members of social classesMarxist theories can aid in analyzing the works of writers who are interested in class divisions, such as Dickens, Orwell, Sinclair, and Steinbeck.You can even consider the economic conditions of your own world.

Sydney Madam Defarge

The End!