LITERARY CRITICISM ASSIGNMENT

2. MARXIST THEORY

Marxism refers to the philosophy developed by Karl Marx, which concentrates on the strife
between the capitalist and the working classes, arguing that all of humanity's history is the
outcome of material conditions rather than ideas. He believed that religion, morality, social
and structures are all rooted in economics. Marx was of the opinion that the power nexus
between capitalists and workers was intrinsically exploitative in nature and would
unavoidably create an immense strain in society.

Marxist theory, an extension of this philosophy, asserts that literature is a product of social
forces and ideologies. Through this interpretation, literature is read and analysed as an
exposition of the prevalent class struggle. Literature is thus, not merely a concern of
individual inclination but goes on to correlate to the social and political conditions of
contemporary times. This chapter explores the aforementioned theory of Marxist literary
theory, with an introduction to Marxist philosophy and the support and critique it gained.

Marx believed there were two social classes, the capitalist and the proletariat. The
distinguishing factor between these classes constituted a lengthy history of social
advancement. Classical Marxism was a form of historical determinism, which meant that it
believed that the investigation of history could be applied to explain all social constructs and
deficiencies. Communities developed from ancient systems dependent on cultivation, these
evolved into feudal structures, which were the first instances of the worker-master dynamic.
This eventually led to the creation of the division of labour in capitalist societies. These
developments further led to the origin of private property and the inconsistencies in wealth
that were a result of because of the uneven distribution between classes. Thus, Marxism
assigned the ills of capitalist society to the historical proceedings and proposed a system
wherein the working classes seized all means of manufacturing and designed a new society
with the totalitarianism of the proletariat, which would be a classless, communist society.

Next, Marxist ideas, interpretations, and the value attached to the term commodity are
explored. The literal definition he assigned to commodity was anything produced out of the
materials of nature; the form of a commodity corresponded with its trade value while the
content corresponded with its utility value. Exchange values were related to how a
commodity’s value may rise or fall depending on its desirability. Use values were derived
from the labour consumed in creating it and remained constant. Surplus value was what
accumulated for the capitalist who owned the means of manufacturing said commodity, it is
the difference between salaries paid and the substantive activity undertaken by labourers,
which was excessive and thus exploitative. In a Marxist capitalist culture, workers are
invariably underpaid, this surplus in the amount between the cost of producing a commodity
and the price paid for it constituted the capital, which in turn broadens this disparity. The
commodity structure, thus, is vital to comprehending the Marxist vision of the utopian social
entirety. The socialist theory of Marxism is founded in the base and superstructure model,
which refers to the infrastructure or modes of production as well as to the class formations
and class relationships generated; and the social and cultural conventions and customs that
proclaim and support these distinct ideologies, respectively. This is further intertwined with
the concepts of social hegemony and domination by economically powerful groups through
the constant oppression of the weaker sections to ensure they are unable to achieve power.

Since Marx used these terms with his own specific interpretations in relation to his
ideologies, they have undergone a number of modifications and developments, with the
correlation between ideology and the modes of production receiving special attention. Georg
Lukács in his work, "History of Class Consciousness", states that materialist investigation
must regard itself with the association to society as a single body, he meant that society must
be conceived as a compact whole, the operation of creation at a given point in history and the
resulting division of society into classes. Philosophy, according to him, was a form of corrupt
knowledge that arose whenever the individual consciousness of the ruling class is taken to be
the accurate knowledge of society at large. It is not merely a question of good or bad
judgment, but rather of ignoring the fundamentally analytic process of historical
development. In simpler terms, this focuses on how the mentality of those in power easily
transitions into the perceived reality of the masses even if it isn't reflective of the said masses.

Gramsci in his works described two distinct groups, the traditional intellectuals formed by the
clergy, professors, writers, and artists, who enjoy relativistic autonomy, and organic
intellectuals, the specialists that every new class creates alongside itself. Both worked within
and sustained the existing social conditions. Organic intellectuals in capitalist societies were
principally ineffective and regulated, voluntary promoters of the dominant ideology.
Traditional intellectuals belong to services and guilds, they put themselves forward as
autonomous and independent of the dominant social group. Gramsci suggests that the only
alternative to this pervasive social web was to construct models of counter-hegemony,
especially among working-class activists and intellectuals. The need for the development of
an organic intellectual tradition in the working classes led Gramsci to a radical preconception
of intellectual activity, wherein each man, outside his professional activity, carries on some
form of intellectual activity, thereby making him a philosopher, an artist, a man of taste,
providing him with a conscious line of moral conduct. This finally, made the man able to
contribute to the aesthetic development of society.

In addition, numerous cultural and societal norms are explored alongside their contribution to
the growing hegemony and incongruity between classes, within this discussion, the concept
of dominant ideologies remains at the vanguard. However, Althusser critiqued this theory and
argued that the abovementioned false consciousness was but an imaginary construction and
that ideology represented the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of
existence. Althusser also referred to the Lacanian Imaginary, which corresponded to the
psychological phase prior to the Oedipal phase of development when the individual is yet to
encounter the differentiation between a space of fantasy formations, of resistance to mimesis,
reason, rationality, the entire order of the symbolic.

Another significant Althusserian concept was that of structural causality, which helped
account for a non-arbitrary method of historical determination. What mattered in this was not
a direct economic or material relation between modes of production and the social and
political spheres, like in classical Marxism, but more so the composition of connections
between these means and provinces across the range of social and cultural organizations.
More often than not, this composition of connections can't be efficiently obvious. Although
historical determinism remains an indispensable concept, even though it is no longer
considered in arbitrary terms. History is driven by demand, but it is not the meaning of
demand presented by classical Marxism. It is instead the demand of composition and of
fundamental relations. The chapter sums up by stating that the concept of Marxism's cultural
hegemony remains relevant, however, it calls for new means to combat such societal
afflictions.

Marx’s philosophy and analysis remains relevant in our time, marked by a capitalist society
and growing inequality of incomes. While Marx acknowledged the liberating impact of
capitalism on human beings in relation to the bondage imposed by feudalism, he deeply
analysed the exploitative capitalist structure and the endless suffering it caused to human
beings. The dynamic nature of Marxist concepts and their dialectical character are of
enduring significance for humanity, caught in a whirlpool of global warming and climate
change. In fact, the dialectics of nature is a critical imperative for our age marked by
environmental degradation: A reckless capitalist economy and predatory market forces
threaten the very existence of the earth. The capitalism which Marx analysed has today
transformed into crony capitalism, leading to more exploitation and causing grave
dehumanisation. Marx was prophetic about the destructive nature of capitalism and offered
scientific socialism as the alternative. It is the task of the working classes to realise it.
The present-day world needs a philosophy and practice to herald non-exploitative social and
economic structures based on compassion, equality, liberty, fraternity and equal opportunity.
In terms of both philosophy and practice, Marxism combines in its scope both the dimensions
and thereby, provides a comprehensive approach for dealing with complex social and
economic issues of our time.

PRAKRITI KOHLI
3429