Dangerous Tools #3 Marxism/Socialism/Capitalism
Perhaps no ideas are more talked about and less understood in America today than Marxism and Socialism. We will begin today with a conversation on Marxism, then transition into Socialism.
Marxism refers to the writings and teaching of Karl Marx (who was German, by the way – not Russian)
Marx argues that the history of civilization is essentially the history of two classes of people endlessly battling for control of wealth: what Marx calls the means of production. These two classes are the PROLETARIAT and the BOURGEOIS.
The Proletariat are essentially the ‘worker bees’ in society: they do the grunt work, the heavy lifting, the “Dirty Jobs” that Mike Rowe examines on the Discovery Channel. Their physical labor produces the goods and services that are enjoyed by….The Bourgeoisie.
The Bourgeoisie is the MERCHANT CLASS of society. These are the people that make their living by selling – as opposed to creating – things. These are the managers, the organizers, and essentially anyone who controls the production of other people.
Marx believes that these two classes are locked in an eternal struggle that always favors The Bourgeoisie. This is to say, the Bourgeoisie will oppresses and manage the Proletariat until the Proletariat violently revolt and over throw their masters – at which point the Proletariat become the new Bourgeoisie and find even weaker people to oppress – and the cycle continues.
For Marx, the way out of this cycle is the establishment of SOCIALISM. Under socialism, wealth and the means of production are controlled by the State, not by The Bourgeoisie. The state disperses goods and services to people according to their NEED. For example, if you need an education, or food, or health care, or a military to keep you safe, the state will provide these things. The state is publicly owned and operated, and can be changed by the people as NEEDED. The whole idea here is that, if a nation becomes a socialist state, there is a good chance that everyone will have the basic resources they need to live a good and full life. For example, you would not need to worry about going into debt for your education, or about dying alone as an old person in your impoverished childrens’ run-down one room apartment.
In America today, you will generally hear people talk about the stark difference between Capitalism and Socialism, as if they were opposites. Capitalism, as we all know, is a system that, in Marxist terms, seeks to enable the Bourgeoisie to create and manage as much wealth as possible. The idea is that, anyone who generates enough wealth will basically become something like the beneficial state as it is imagined under Marxism – they will donate their money to help other people out. This is the “compassionate conservative” we hear so much about. Well, as we all know, this is not true. People who collect wealth and power tend to hold onto it, so they can affirm their own power within society. But we also know that pure socialism is as much of a disaster as pure Capitalism. In fact, in the world today, Capitalism and Socialism are merging in new and fascinating ways, and this is one of the most exciting things about the new century so far.
What you need to know is that when people use Socialism as an idea to scare people, what they are really doing is using Socialism as a code word for something very different, Fascism. Fascism is, essentially, the consolidation of all wealth and power in the hands of very few VIOLENT people. The struggle with Fascism was the great battle of the 20th century, and it continues into the present day.
The problem is that many people have come to think of socialism as fascism – which is absurd. It’s like thinking that Democracy is the same thing as a Monarchy.
Your futures will largely depend on how well your country is able to separate these ideas and see how they may be combined to better everyone’s life. If we don’t, the future may become a very unsettled place. Capitalism and Socialism are the only really developed tools we have in the West for combating Fascism.
Advertisement
[...] Wednesday, April 1 [...]
Caleb Ashey
Eh241 Professor Crowley
1-2-09
Most Useful Literary Tool
I think for reading Jane Eyre the most useful literary tool would be the Marxism/Socialism way of reading the book. There are many instances where in the book people are ignored or dismissed because of where they are in life. Most of the characters that you meet in the story are female servants or housewives. Which are about the only occupations that are available in a Marxist society. They are unable to grasp power from well-to-do males because they aren’t given the opportunity to. The only real female character with any power in the book would be Mrs. Reed and only because she is a widow. If you look at almost any of the adversity and struggles in this book at can be explained through Marxism.
But my overall most useful tool that I use in just about everything that I read would be the psychoanalytical tool. Most of the books and texts that I read have many plot twists and characters. So I think the best way to handle those types of books are to try and get to know the characters really well. That way you almost know the character better than they know themselves and it gives you some understanding of why they do the things they do. In Jane Eyre, I believe that she continually isolates herself because she doesn’t know how to deal with a true companion. Early in her childhood she had no true friends, and when she did come across a friend they either abandoned her or died. So I believe that’s the reason she doesn’t really let anyone get that close to her. Except in the case of Rochester.
Stefanie Foutch
Major British Writers
4/2/09
Helpful Tools
There are so many ways to read Jane Eyre; there are many twists and turns, vicissitudes, and so many characters to look at. Over all, I would have to say that the best way to look at Jane Eyre is; Marxism. Jane and all the other women in the story do not have many options on what they want to do with their lives. They are either house views or servants, and the men definitely have the upper hand in the story. Yet again, even though these women are “slaves” they are provided for. They have a home, food, clothing, and someone who pretends to care about them. Sure, it may sound unfair, but that is the way it went in the time of Jane Eyre.
Jane seems to be ruled by other people, and she seems to be provided for. However, she still worries about money. She wants to be her uncle’s heir, and she does not want to marry Rochester for social status. Unfortunately, the story it is all about social status. The women could be considered as proletarians, and the man as the bourgeoisie. All the women seem to marrying men who are wealthy or high class, just so they can rise on the social ladder.
Even though Marxism is used frequently in the story, psychoanalytic theory could also be used. Since there are many characters in the story, there are many minds and many personalities. In order to truly understand the characters, one could use psychoanalytic theory. This tool can be helpful with knowing the characters better than they know themselves. In addition, it can help to foresee up coming events and plot twists in the story. Moreover, it may help the reader understand the story more and to enjoy the story. Nothing is fun when it is a struggle. Therefore, if the reader knows more about the characters and the actual book, the reader may have more fun reading.
William Dow
4/2/2009
Eh241.001
The ways to Understanding Jane Eyre
This week I have been exposed to an alternative way of thinking about books. There have been three forms for dissecting novels that we have learned so far. However, out of them the one that I can understand the most is using a Marxist reading to the book. I say that as feminism is the most present but it is so vast in the novel and I really do not have a grasp on that topic. I feel that it would be hard for me to use that approach on the novel.
The idea of class structure is one that I have opinions on much like everyone, but the idea behind it is a very interesting one so much, so that it interests me more then I can understand. There is a well-established class system in Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre that it is a gold mind for dissecting the novel with in such away.
Seeing that I stated in the introductory paragraph feminism is rampant in this novel. I thought I am not an expert or even that a novice it is the hard to miss all but a very few characters are female fitting all the forms of social standing. There is also a showing of intelligence throughout the gender. As most female characters are stereotypes of the perception of women during the time, the young girl Adele being the longest running example of this. In addition to very few characters acting in a period breaking way, where Jane and her friend for school where the counter to the girls of that time. This also is an example of Marxism with the little girl being brought up in the upper echelon and Jane in the lower category.
Sarah Rackliffe
EH 241
Professor Crowley
April 3, 2009
Jane Eyre Reading
While first reading Jane Eyre we learn that Jane is a strong woman who has worked hard for everything she has. Reading the book in a feminist way was probably the best way up until she starts working at Thornfield. Once at Thornfield we really see social class separation coming into play. We see Jane, a Proletariat, treated harshly by the Bourgeois such as Blanche Ingram and her friends. Here the readings are best looked at from a Marxism and socialism way because of the way the difference classes treat each other.
As we read further we see Rochester propose to Jane after she admits her feelings towards him. Thought she is very happy there is one thing bothering her, their difference in social class. Jane almost feels like she is not good enough for him because of their class difference. This bothers her so must that she ends up writing back to her uncle agreeing to inherit his fortune upon his death hoping this will maybe bring her up to his level. The fact that this bothers her so much surprises me. Throughout this whole book Jane seemed like such a strong women who wouldn’t be bothered by such a thing. Earlier in the book she seemed appalled and angered by the fact that Rochester and Ingram were only going to marry because of their level of social class and not love, but now Rochester was marrying her for love and she feels so wrong about it.
It’s amazing to see how social difference can affect Jane so much in her pursuit of happiness. In this book it seems she wants to be rich not because of the happiness it can offer her but just so she can justify marrying Rochester, the one person that she loves.
On the issue of what would be the best literary tool to use when dissecting Jane Eyre? I would have to say psychoanalytical or Marxism/Socialism. As we read the novel Jane Eyre, we come across some very bold and interesting characters. Most of them are women in a period of time that they did not have the same rights as men and were looked at as on a “lower ladder rung” than men in society. If I were to write a paper discussing the psychoanalytical aspects of these characters in this novel, I would look deep into their actions, words, and where they are currently in life. I would look at these main aspects because we as readers need to understand that these principle factors have weight on their psyche. Due to this “weight” they act in certain ways and we can tie them in to Freud or any other school of Psychology in hopes of getting a better understanding of the novel and characters as a whole.
On the second topic of Marxism and Socialism and dissecting Jane Eyre using these literary tools, it might come easier than first thought if you were sitting down and writing an argument. Jane is in a constant struggle to get to the next “level” in society and she is constantly working at achieving this feet. She is constantly working for the “man” (no pun intended) and seems to just fall into conformity which is very common in Marxism. All these powerful male characters can be seen as the “government” and she is working for them to produce a product that will better her life. In this case it would be moving up in social class and her product would be her work in life to achieve this. Socialism is in many ways the same. Jane is still working for the “man” to achieve something better in her life. The government is always there to watch her and bring her down. (government: I mean the upper class in the novel which she is try so desperately to gain admittance to). She is always in a constant struggle and there is always a institution above her controlling her actions. It just seems her life is limited because she was born into a lower social class and she could never achieve living in a higher class even through hard work.
Probably the best way to look at Charlotte Bronte’s novel; Jane Eyre is through a Marxist point of view. The novel itself has this underlying problem of the character’s and their social classes.
All the women in this novel have these jobs of house wives, or servants. Which are the only occupations that are available to females while looking at this book from a Marxist point of view. Jane faces the prospects of a young woman lacking the social advantages of family, money, and beauty, and therefore especially vulnerable to the fascination of admiration and security.
Although, when I look at this book I look at it through a feminist perspective. The reason I do this is because this novel contains a strong feminist stance. Thus, Jane Eyre is the epitome of femininity; she is a young, independent individual, who stands true to her morals and virtues, and is assertive to her beliefs.
All in all, I think the ideal way to look at Jane Eyre is through a combined theory of feminism and Marxism. I believe in some ways both theories build a foundation for the other, and putting the two together would be the right way to understand Charlotte Bronte’s novel.
Adam Crowley
EH 241
Feminism in “Jane Eyre”
3 April 2009
The reading for Friday has a lot of feminist ideals which would have been considered new ways of thinking during the time period which this story takes place. In “Jane Eyre” Charlotte Bronte wrote about Jane’s independence and strength. She found herself struggling with independence and love. In the story, Mr. Rochester plead for Jane’s love, even though he was married (though to a person of a sick mental state). She discovered the only way to truly survive through that episode of her life was to leave him forever. In the book, Mr. Rochester said, “Who in the world cares for you? or who will be injured by what you do?” Here, Mr. Rochester was trying to ask Jane why she would leave him when he loved her more than anybody. He is also (in a way) asking her not to leave. Her reply was as follows: “I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad – as I am now.” This is very important (in the book and the political world) because it offers, at the time, a new outlook on the way people see women. It was very unlikely for a woman to claim she was independent during that time period; yet, Jane Eyre seem to be able to. She certainly is the strongest woman in early literature that I have read thus far, even more strong than the wife of Bath in “The Canterbury Tales” because not only does she show her independence, but also shows her strength, charisma and at the same time proved to be very respectable, which the wife of Bath failed to do with her stories of her many dead husbands.
Leah Gomes
3 April 2009
Adam Crowley
Jane Eyre
Tools for Reading
I think that Feminist Theory would be the most useful to a reading of “Jane Eyre.” I began thinking about this because of how class is portrayed in this book and the exploration of how woman may act in society. Jane Eyre must find where she belongs in this society and what her boundaries are in each different class that she finds herself in. There are so many woman in this story, other than Jane, and they each have a class standard that they must stick to. There is no way for Mrs. Reed and Mrs. Fairfax will never be able to do anything else. They won’t be able to improve their status. Bertha is another character who could make an incredible point for a Feminist Theory viewpoint. I think that Jane’s character is interesting because she is able to move from one class, sort of, to another. If I chose to write a paper using this theory, it would be very hard, because I have never looked at this book in that way. However, I guess that is what this class is about: trying something that you haven’t done before. I think there could be a reading that compares Jane with Bertha with the topic of madness and rage relating to the status of females. The ideas of class and Feminist Theory can also be combined with the Marxist Theory, but I am not sure yet how I would go about supporting that.
Benjamin McGray
EH 241
Adam Crowley
April 2, 2009
Over the past week or more we have been learning about different analytical theories used to understand literature. These concepts have been extremely helpful with the reading of Jane Eyre. I must say that some of the theories, such as the Marxist theory and the Psychoanalytical theory, seemed to be to abstract, or maybe broad is the right word, to apply to the stories we have been reading, however Jane Eyre, along with a better understanding, has helped to bring these theories into focus. I have found that a Marxist reading of Jane Eyre has, by far, been the most useful perspective in understanding the text.
There are many examples of events in the book that have Marxist undertones. The most obvious is the contrast between the classes of characters in the book. There are basically wealthy homeowners and the servants that work for the homeowners. Even when Jane, the main character, is not in a setting where this is true, there is still a hierarchy that she must adhere to. With this contrast of classes I feel as though the author, Charlotte Bronte, is bringing into question the significance of such a strict class system through the character of Jane. In the society portrayed in the book, one understood as historically accurate, one’s class is ascribed, mostly by your ancestry, and cannot be changed. However Jane seems to float in this gray area between classes. Her ancestry on her mother’s side is one of great standing and wealth, and even her upbringing is upper class, yet because of her position of governess and lowly appearance she is looked down upon by the higher social tier. Yet by almost all standards she was born of an equal class as those who persecute her, which makes the reader asks what the point of such a social structure is.
Other aspects of the book seem to wear the “red beard” as well. I think of Lowood when Jane first arrives and how it operates. Mr. Brocklehurst can certainly represent the middle class of society and the poor orphan school children clearly represent the working class of society. It seems that Brocklehurst is doing everything he can to prevent these girls from up to a higher station in life and only provides them with tools that will be conducive to leading a working class life style. The students at Lowood in a way are just proletariat stem-cells. Going even further, according to Marx a society that functions on the middle class oppression of the working class is destined to result in a revolution by the working class. I could easily argue that that is exactly what takes place at Lowood. Citizens seemingly become enlightened to the fact that the administrative system is not working at the school so they take control and restructure Lowood so that students are getting proportionate means of goods to ensure a better quality of schooling, which seems a lot like socialism ipso fact Marxism.
Gavin Kennedy
eh241
I have chosen the book “Jane Eyre” to talk about in the upcoming paper. I have not definitely choose my topic yet; I am debating between focusing on feminism or Marxism. Both of these vantage points have a lot to offer in the way for material and ability to write about it. The real choice now is to try and either meld them together, because both vantage points have some similar topics, or to just do one and shun the other.
If I were to do Marxism I would focus heavily on Jane’s role in society. From the time she was little she was somewhere in between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Having some tendencies of both, more towards proletariats, she will be a very interesting topic to write about considering Marxism. While she is very young she is an orphan but still leads a life of comfortability but still with much abuse from Aunt and cousins. She doesn’t really know where she belongs, either to that bourgeoisie or the proletariats any where she goes, this is a common theme throughout the book. At Lowood she is repressed by a man that is a hypocrite. Lowoods main owner and advisor’s wife and children where living in the lap of luxury while all the students wallowed in squaller, actually causing the death of many children. Then there is a revolution which will be interesting where a board of advisors takes over for the most part and there is reform. Even when Jane leaves Lowood she still stuck somewhere in between, she is working as a governess but Hr. Rochester still doesn’t know what to do with her. He doesn’t know whether to order her around like a dependent or if she is his equal. This leads to much confusion and doubt for herself and Mr. Rochester. The wedding that was called off was purely about money and status and marrying in between to lines, Mr. Rochester calling it off was, in its own way, a small revolt against social norms.
From the beginning this novel has been very strongly feminism, in my opinion. There were very few male characters and those that were male were not very nice, except the doctor that came to visit Jane. The book displays women at all different levels; orphans, widows, teachers, students, wives, strong, weak. She shows how women are strong and independent from there husbands and fathers. She shows that women also have free will and hopes and dreams. The book tries to show that not everyone has to be a slave to whatever class or gender you were born into, that life is what you make it and not what you are stuck with. Throughout the book Jane has been striving to try to hold her own in the world, to be her own person with very little help or encouragement from very many people. Jane wants to be able to contribute to her and Mr. Rochester’s marriage, she wants to became a teacher, she struck out on her own at school and got a job there, she made things work for herself with minimal help or guidance. I am hoping the rest of the book lends more insight to this topic because as of now Marxism seems like a more developed topic.
Kacey Beckwith
April 4, 2009
Eh 241: Major British Authors
Professor Adam Crowley
Most Useful Tools
I think that many of the literary tools that we have been learning about can be useful in analyzing Jane Eyre. However, I think some are easier to use than others. The ones that I feel would be most useful to me are Queer Theory and Marxism.
Queer Theory is useful when looking into the relationships between the different characters and how they react in different situations around one another. There are many places in Jane Eyre where Mr. Rochester and Jane seem to be put into an “awkward” situation with one another and this often causes them to act very odd. Jane doesn’t always know her place and Mr. Rochester often acts one way towards her in one situation, and then very differently in another. This seems to often cause confusion and it makes the two characters act very uncomfortable with each other in many different instances.
Marxism is useful when looking at the different character and their classes in the novel. There are people from all different classes represented in the text. Mr. Rochester and his company are from the bourgeoisie. Everyone else, excluding Jane, is from the proletariat class. Jane herself is apparently somewhere caught in the middle. Her job would imply that she is looked upon as a proletariat, but there are situations in the book where Jane is treated as if she is more than that, especially by Mr. Rochester.