MARXISM

Marxism Chapter

“Ideology has very little to do with consciousness—it is profoundly unconscious.”

~Louis Althusser

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

~Karl Marx

Marxism: the Economic theory

            Karl Marx (1818-1883), a German philosopher, and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), a German sociologist are the founders of Marxist theory. They called their economic theory ‘communism’; it wouldn’t be until later that we would refer to the (literary) theory as Marxism. (Poor Engels. Marx got all the credit.) The theory was born from their written piece, Communist Manifesto in 1848 (Barry). Historically, Marx and Engels’ ideas helped to bring about the French Revolution and their economic theory would also influence countries and political systems well into the twentieth century (including Indonesia and the US) and their influence is still felt today.

            The goal of communism is to bring about a classless society. The reason is because Marx and Engels understood that capitalist societies (like Indonesia, like America) bring about many problems for all people, but especially for lower economic classes. In other words, capitalism depends on exploiting the lower classes or laborers (Bertren, 83). The goal of communism and Marx’s theory, therefore, is to change society and bring about a system with no differing economic classes, so we are all the same class. Altering society is not a common or goal of all philosophers. Many philosophers and various philosophies seek only to understand life, not change it.

            Marx and Engels’ theory of Marxism is what is known as a materialist philosophy. This philosophy only focuses on materials, objects and things which are tangible, purchasable. Therefore, matters beyond this world, related to religion, death, after life, heaven or hell, spiritualism, supernatural, etc, are not of interest to these two or to this type of philosophy. Nor does the above list of intangible matters play a part in their theory. On the other hand, Idealist Philosophy considers the abstract and intangible in discussions, including spiritual matters. Therefore, Marxism is classified separately, under the category of materialist philosophy (Barry &Bertren).

            Usually when beginning with Marxism, literary theorists begin by discussing ideology. There are many different definitions of ideology, depending on whose definition is used and what discipline or field of study is being discussed. Ideology, in general, refers to any set of ideas, principles, norms, values, myths, etc, that define a society, culture, or other group of people. Ideology is usually not noticed by the people of the society. Ideological premises are implicit, so dwelling underneath the surface or hidden. However, in discussing Marxism, usually Althusser’s definition of ideology is used because it focuses on material existence, very appropriate to Marxist values. Althusser’s ideology recognized that people are unable to escape their society’s ideology. Furthermore, he claimed that people become subjects within ideology.

One analogy to help us to understand more about how ideology works in society is picturing a fish tank. The fish inside the fish tank likely do not see themselves as being trapped within the tank or the aquarium. The fish believe that they are free to swim around; they believe they have choices. However, the tank or the aquarium keeps the fish contained or trapped within a space. The tank is glass or transparent and the fish do not notice they are confined. In this analogy, citizens of a capitalist society are represented by the fish. While the ideology, in this case the capitalist system, is represented by the tank itself. We, as citizens of a capitalist society, cannot hope to get outside of the aquarium. The best that we can hope for is to notice the tank, to see how limited we are because of the economic system of capitalism.

            If we all succumb or go along with society’s ideology then we live in a state of falseconsciousness. This is the idea that we are blind toour own condition. In other words, capitalism makes perhaps normally humane and good-hearted bourgeoisie people become more de-sensitized to human suffering and extreme, saddening economic conditions. What is more, the bourgeoisie do not protest or fight against such conditions. They merely accept them and will even perhaps believe that they deserve their higher status while the lower class people will deserve their position. However, in a capitalist system, one’s economic status is never quite secure, even when a person is at a higher status. Consequently, both lower and upper classes are involved in class struggle, whether the struggle is to rise in economic status or to maintain economic conditions, respectively.

            The basic model for understanding Marx’s ideas is to understand two concepts: the base and the superstructure. (Please see below.) The base is on the bottom and represents money or related to economics. Whereas the top, the superstructure, refers to anything else: education, religion, arts, philosophy, etc. Though extreme, Marx believed all of the above categories depended on money as its base. There is an expression in English, “money makes the world go ‘round.” Marx would wholeheartedly agree with this idea, which is evidenced through this model. Some may contest this idea: surely religion is not dependent on money. How can philosophy be about money? According to Marx, all require money. People who want to build religious buildings must still use money to purchase land and materials. Mosques and churches still must pay money for electric or whatever else they need to function as a religious building. Also money offerings are taken from members because even religious institutions are not free or immune from needing money to exist. This evidence demonstrates how even religion and more abstract (intangible aspects of life) do not exist outside of this model. Sometimes we tend to think that some parts of life, like culture, exist separately or in a different category from economics. Marx disagrees with that idea. Rather, he believes that cultureis entirely influenced by and operates (or depends on money); this is known as economic determinism.

Marxism understood that modern industrial capitalist societies result in exploitation, which their theory referred to as alienation.Alienation is when a laborer must perform menial or unskilled tasks that are often repetitive and usually the worker has no concept of why s/he is doing this particular work. Most frequently, the ones who suffer this type of exploitation are lower classes, or the proletariat. The ones who exploit the proletariat by forcing them to do these tasks are called the bourgeoisie, or the upper class. (Sometimes the term bourgeoisie also refers to the middle class. Either way, this class means a group of people do not need to fear starvation because of a more secure economic situation.)

            The two different classes depend on each other for survival. Capitalism requires both proletariat and bourgeoisie. According to Delahoyde, “In bourgeois capitalism, the privileged bourgeoisie rely on the proletariat--the labor force responsible for survival.” However, Marx claimed that when profits or money is not reinvested in the workers but in creating more factories and adding to the bourgeoisie’s further wealth, then the workers will grow poorer and poorer. This will continue to happen until a crisis point or “a revolt will lead to a restructuring of the system” (Delahoyde); usually the revolt is lead by the proletariat. 

            The workers, the proletariat, have undergone a process that Marx would label reification in his later work entitled Das Kapital. Simply put, reification refers to the way in which capitalist societies reduce human beings to becoming things or machines, only valued for their labor. Another way to think about reification is that the proletariat, or lower classes, lose their humanity because those in charge may only think about the work done or the products produced. No longer do the upper classes recognize the lower classes as people with individual needs and abilities. Rather, the lower class is reduced to only what they can provide for the upper class.

Lenist Marxism

            Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) was also a Marxist; however, he revised some of Marx’s ideas. His ideas would later become known as Marxism-Leninism. In 1905 Lenin argued that literature must become an instrument of the party. By this, Lenin meant that literature, as an art, must be used as a tool to fight against conditions. Please remember that art is powerful. Art can be used to influence people and to touch people in many ways. Literature can change people’s minds about issues or beliefs about things they once believed.

Therefore, Lenin did not entirely agree with the model of the superstructure and base, where literature existed as dependent on the economic base. However, Lenin focused on the use of art or literature for a specific purpose. The purpose was committed to the cause of the left or communism, or to raise protests against the evils and dangers of capitalist societies. Therefore, while art and literature was freed from the model Marx proposed, it was also confined to Lenin’s ideas. Art was not open and free for expression, but rather it was to be used specifically for furthering the goals of communism. This idea of Lenin’s would later come to be known as ‘Vulgar Marxism’.Vulgar refers to something crass; perhaps part of the reason for this was because Lenin believed that literature could have a very cause and effect relationship on changing economic conditions. Furthermore, Vulgar Marxism also meant that each writer was trapped inside of his/her economic conditions. In other words, all artists are so influenced by their economic conditions that they are unable to break free from the confines. Therefore, any piece of art can be analyzed or explained by the present economic conditions at the time when art was produced.  (On the other hand, Engels, on the other hand, believed art should exist freely, still determined by economics, but open to freedom of expression.)

Engels Marxism

            In the 1930’s a group of Marxists emerged who were known as Englesian Marxists. These Marxists believed that the language of literature had its own procedures (techniques, forms,) and effects. They borrowed the idea from Shklovsky of defamiliarisation or making strange the familiar. These Marxists argued that literary language had the power or the ability to make the familiar world appear new to us, as though we were seeing it for the first time. The benefit of making the known become or appear unknown to us is that we can then assess or evaluate it in new ways. We may be able to think of our economic conditions in new ways if we see our position from a fresh or new perspective. In this way, literature helps to make progress.

            However, these Marxists also used another type of literary criticism called formalism. Formalism looks at the structure of language that is used. Sometimes language is changed and manipulated so that it (in literature) may contain repetitions, juxtapositions (contrasts to create a specific effects or impact on the reader), changing the order, etc. Formalism literary criticism was popular in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and they focused on the distinction between language and reality. (One of the most famous formalists was Bahktin, who is also well known in linguistics.) The formalists’ works gave rise to a new field of criticism called “New Criticism.” These critics believed in closely analyzing literary texts and in recognizingliterary language and how it differs from day-to-day language. This idea is that a shift exists between literature and ordinary life.

Althusser

            Althusser criticized the Marxist idea of economic determinism that all aspects of living result from economics. He would call this idea over determinism, because he believed that there are many factors acting together that create influences, not just the one factor of economics. Althusser believed that art had a degree of autonomy, or independence from economics. Therefore, Althusser would not believe, like Marx, that art was only on top of the base and part of the superstructure. Instead, Althusser contended that there are many forces that connect culture and economics, and he criticized over-simplistic views like how he viewed economic determinism. Althusser’s critique of the Marxist model he referred to as de-centering, or a way to upset or subvert (get away from) Marxist’s model of the economic base as always existing on the base or the bottom. Part of this critique focused on the unique position of art as existing separately from the previous model. According to author Peter Barry, this Englesian Marxist way of thinking does “not cancel out the Marxist tendency to imprison art within economics, but they do release literature… and allow it a high degree of day-to-day freedom.” This means that these later Marxists tried to provide art a special place that was not trapped within the limited Marx model or in Lenin’s Vulgar Marxism. Essentially, these Marxists acknowledged that while economic factors do influence literature and arts, there is no direct cause and effect relationship.

            Althusser also used the term of so-called ‘ideological State apparatuses’. This means that even when some groups may claim that they have their own sub-ideology, or free way of thinking that is not like the norm or the capitalist way, all are still subject to the ruling ideology (Bertren, 85).

Gramsci

            Anthonio Gramsci (1891-1934) was an Italian who discussed the idea of hegemony that would eventually become an important part of Marxism. Hegemony refers to internalized, natural and unseen social control that keeps a system in place or operating as usual. In other words, hegemony means that citizens believe that they have freedom of choice within their culture or political system. However, the citizens’ complete freedom or individual autonomy is not entirely true or real. The citizens believe themselves to have freedom, but actually there is a form of control in place. Being influenced by hegemony, people believe that they have control and are therefore less likely to protest or fight back. However, the citizens’ choices are actually very limited. Often citizens accept desperate economic conditions as just “the way things are” or “the way the world works,” and this is hegemony.

Althusser’s idea of interpellation

            Althusser agreed with this idea of hegemony, but he further explained that citizens are more compliant and agreeable if they feel that they have a choice. In other words, humans believe they are free agents, or believe that they have choices. But in reality, their choices and freedom is limited. The false idea or sense of choice is called interpellation, a term coined by Althusser. Althusser pointed out how often times military or police control is not needed because of hegemony and interpellation; citizens do not require physical force to operate within a capital system because they are already compliant or following along with the system. Althusser’s views are what literary critics now call revisionist Marxism, which means that we take some Marxist ideas but we “rethink and repackage the basic concepts in a form which is more subtle and more flexible” (Barry, 111).

Other Marxist theorists:

Terry Eagleton

George Lukacz

Pierre Macherey

Frederic Jameson (argued that a ‘waning of affect’ or a lack of emotion is also the reason why capitalism can continue to function)

Trotsky: Literature and Revolution

Feminist Marxists:

Gayle Rubbin

Charlotte Perkins Gilman (Women and Economics)

TorilMoi

Further Marxist readings:

Philip Goldstein’s The Politics of Literary Theory: An Introduction to Marxist Criticism

Francis Mulhern (as editor): Contemporary Marxist Literary Criticism

Raymond Williams: Marxism and Literature

How does economic theory become a literary theory?

            Marx did not focus a lot of attention on literature, although he was cultured and read and respected literature. For the Marx (and Engels) model, literature existed as part of the superstructure. While the two theorists did recognize that arts had a certain degree of freedom, in their original theory they ultimately believed that literature, like all arts, was entirely dependent on money (remember the model above).

Nowadays we use Marxism not just as an economic theory but as a literary theory.  Some may wonder why and how economics and literature are related. Simply put, literature, in reflecting life, will have connections to economics and class struggle. This is because in life human beings struggle with economics andcapitalist system. In stories or poems, characters are often influenced by economics, capitalism, class struggle, etc. Authors are also not immune from economic or class struggle either. According to Delahoyde, “Literature reflects class struggle and materialism: think how often the quest for wealth traditionally defines characters.”

            According to Peter Barry, when you analyze literature using Marxism, you must consider: “Are you going to adopt a 'determinist' position, and argue that literature is the passive product of socio-economicforces, or do you take a more 'liberal' line and see the socio-economic influence as much moredistant and subtle?” (112). You need to ask yourself this question because not all Marxism views arts and literature in the same way. Again, like feminism and other literary theories, it is important to know specifically what kind of Marxist or which Marxist writer you are using, because not all Marxist writers agree. Actually, many Marxist writers have very dissimilar ideas about how economics affect social conditions and what role literature plays in economics.

Some Marxist scholars view literature "not as works created in accordance with timeless artistic criteria, but as 'products' of the economic and ideological determinants specific to that era" (Abrams, as qtd in Delahoyde,149).

Other Marxists contend that “Literature reflects an author's own class or analysis of class relations” (Delahoyde).

What Marxist critics do?

1. They make a division between the 'overt' (manifest or surface) and 'covert' (latent or

hidden) content of a literary work. They use the covertsubject matter of the literary work and discuss basic Marxist themes, such as class struggle, etc.

2. Another method used by Marxist critics is to relate the context of a literary work to the social-classstatus of the author. In such cases an assumption is made that the author is unaware of precisely what he or she is saying orrevealing in the text. (Remember: she or he cannot know exactly because he/she is forever confined within his or her economic conditions.)

3. A third Marxist method is to explain the nature of a whole literary genre in terms of the

social period which 'produced' it. In other words, a novel would 'speak' for an entire social class.

4. A fourth Marxist practice is to relate the literary work to the social assumptions of the time in which itis read'.

5. A fifth Marxist practice is the 'politicization of literary form'. This means that literary forms aredetermined by political circumstance. For instance, in the view of some critics, how realistic a literary work is could show or validateconservative social structures. On the other hand, some other critics believe that the formal and intricate way that some writing is produced, like the sonnet and the iambic pentameter, show social stability, decorum, and order.

Works Cited

Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory.2^nd ed. Manchester; Mancester University Press, 2002.

Bertrens, Hans. Literary Theory: the Basics. London: Routledge, 2001.

Delahoyde, Michael. Introduction to Literature. “Marxism.”http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/marxist.crit.html

Selden, Raman; Widdowson, Peter; and Peter Brooker.A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. 5^th Ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson & Longman, 2005.

-This literature is dedicated for my friend and beloved lecturer Danielle E. living in United States, and now pursuing her PhD program. This literature is part of the introduction of literature study when I was in a college. Written by my beloved lecturer. The reason I post this because I would like people to read this literature so that they will get more knowledge and be more critical toward perspectives and any literature texts. Thank you :)-