Hegemony and Juliet

In Russell Banks’ “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” we see a peculiar type of power structure at work. I find it peculiar because it is largely implied. Although in the story Ron seems to clearly be taking advantage of Sarah we must not overlook the fact that this story is a narrative and there is no direct mention of a desire to exploit his status over her in the narrative save for some inadvertent objectification. There is mention of “obsession” and “desire” but none of exploitation for the pure sake of sexual gratification. For if this was his true motive could he not have gotten his fix easily somewhere else? Especially considering that he’s, “effortlessly attractive, a genetic wonder, tall, slender, symmetrical, and clean.” I find it hard, no impossible, to believe this was a sexual relationship.

Speaking to that, and speaking to the Marxist perspective as well, our greatest clue into the true nature of this Hegemonious relationship is when Ron exposes his motivations as clearly and succinctly as I think the character is able. “…to keep her in front of me, to draw her forward from the context of her life and place her, as if she were an object, into the context of mine.” This objectification or dehumanization of the individual member of the proletariat is the stuff that Marxist theory thrives on.

Even more interesting to me is another desire. That is Sarah’s desire to involve Ron in her life. In this I see a link to our classroom conversation on Monday. In order for Ron to be a part of her life he must be willing to sacrifice material status in order to see her as an equal. The single greatest Marx affirming moment in the story is when they are standing in Ron’s apartment naked for the first time. They are never before and never again considered equal in the story. They are only equal when they are nude, devoid of the status symbol that we all arguably notice first. Clothing.

Worlds Collide

Russell Banks story represents the idea that you should not seek love outside the confines of your social group. Ron and Sarah were from completely different worlds, he a professional, financially comfortable; she, a laborer, and financially challenged. Additionally he was really handsome, and she really ugly. Beauty and the beast, if you will. If it weren't for alcohol they never would have met.

She was out with friends drinking and accepted a dare to break the norm and speak to Ron. I think, out of curiosity he welcomed the conversation. She felt triumphant as she looked back at her friends having broken "the barrier". He felt inexplicably obsessed with her. However, knowing the danger that might result from continuing his pursuit, he avoided going where he knew she would be (the bar where they met).

As fate would have it they did meet again and without further play did what they had both been determined to do. In this they saw each other as equal, not just stripped of their
clothes, but their sensibilities as well. However this equality did not last as their character came into play. He tried to become part of her world, but could not give up his independence. She wanted him to be a part of her world. I don't think she thought she could live in his though, but she didn't care. After it ended, I think he felt guilty about it. She just did what she needed to do to survive, like going back with her abusive husband.

There were constant references to appearance which amplified the class difference. Attractive meant educated, professional, financially sound. Ugly meant uneducated, laborer, financially stressed.

9/24

While we talked around the texts quite a bit today, remember that this can be dangerous, and result in innaccurate renderings of complex ideas. These writers don't write such long and such abstract works just to be confusing: they are often trying to ride a very fine line and brutal paraphrasing and simplification can destroy what they work so hard to try to achieve. In any case, you won't be able to discuss many of these concepts (ideology or hegemony, for example) without textual reinforcement--be sure to be familiar with these two texts in particular as we move on. On Wednesday I also want to touch on Gramsci's description of intellectuals, since we spent all of our time on 'hegemony.' They are, of course, quite related, but let's tease out those relations.

For Wednesday, read Russell Banks 'Sarah Cole' and find a way to connect it to our discussion in a response of 250-400 words. Even in such a brief space, consider what a 'Marxist reading' of that story might entail. What kinds of things might that reading fixate on?


You'll also find the prompt for essay 1 to the right, if you need it. Remember your topic is due via email by Friday.

For Monday, 9/24

One thing I noticed is that Marx, Gramsci, and Williams reading all deal with some sort of classification, whether it is of social class, intellectuals, or idealogy. For me, all of the readings were extremely difficult, since the readings were not, say, self-explanatory. I had to keep my dictionary close throughout the readings, and even with it I couldn't even quite come close to completely understanding the ideas. A good literature enriches readers' knowledge and experience. For this to be done, the communication between the author and the reader is critical. This communication can be facilitated greatly if the author uses the similar or same "language" as the readers. I believe the reason why the readings, expecially Marx, was so difficult for me (hopefully for all of us) was that it was a mere expression of Marx's ideas, with no help provided to help readers to understand his ideas and connect them with our everyday life problems (which makes it easier, by a lot). A good literature, then I presume, is one written in communicable language that enriches reader's knowledge and experience.
In Gramsci reading, there are two types of intellectuals: one with fancy resume and one without.
One without would be entrepreneurs, who become successful with their people skills and knowledge of their business field. One with would be professionals, the ones with desiriable professions, with disregard to their financial success. How these intellectuals are distinguished from the rest is the exclusiveness of their knowledge, as depicted in ecclesiastics example, or that they know better on the same subject. I also liked the argument that whether intellectuals are an independent class or whether they're present in every classes. I still don't completely understand what he meant by "All men are intellectuals, but not all function as such." The way I understand this was that only those who can put their intellect to work are intellectuals: one who knows a lot but does little can't be an intellectual.

In his essay, “The Intellectuals,” Antonio Gramsci speaks of organic intellectuals and their role in capitalism. These individuals use their thoughts and ideas to control non-intellectuals, trapping them in ideology and coercing them into submission. The intellectuals in control Gramsci is speaking of are the bourgeois, who have had the schooling and power necessary to create their own culture and ideology to force upon the workers. According to Gramsci, the practice of hegemony, the dominance of one class over the other through the force of its superstructure, is the key to capitalist success. Capitalism will not come to an end till the workers organize and form their own ideology to follow. In order to break from being dominated, the working class must develop a culture of its own lead by its own intellectuals and reject the views of the bourgeois. In his essay “Marxism and Literature,” Raymond Williams also discusses the superstructure which perpetuates the upper class dominance of the worker. This superstructure is devised of both legal and political institutions, as well as forms of consciousness. Through coercion on both the private and public level, the State has taken control and put into power an ideology that caters to the upper class while the poor toil below it. The Marxist reading of Jamaica Kincaid's 'Girl' explains the power of a dominant ideology over the submissive working class. The mother in the story is lecturing her daughter on how to adjust herself to the values of the society that dominates her so that she may be accepted.

All the readings, Raymond William, Gramsci’s “The Intellectuals”, and Marxist reading of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” delivered a common message, that in order for a society to exist and be able to function properly, a unified (class less) system must exist.

In the Marxist reading of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”, Marx completely interprets the story according to his beliefs on communism. For example when Rudolph is introduced to the other reindeers, his father covers his nose with mud in order to prevent humiliation. Perhaps Marx emphasizes on this manner in order to demonstrate that this ridiculous instance can only occur in a society that is based on class. In a communist society all individuals are automatically accepted. Marx also mentions Yukon Cornelius the “capitalist wanna-be”. Yukon is unable to accomplish his ultimate desire due to the fact that he is a “capitalist wanna-be”. Additionally when Santa canceled Christmas, Rudolph was the only one who was able to save Christmas due to his deformity. The hidden message in that passage is that capitalism will also eventually fail and the only aspect that can save the industrial world will be communism.

In Gramsci’s “The Intellectual”, he is consumed by the idea of intellectuals. He says that “all men are potentially intellectuals” but however some can not reach that state due to society. He further continues by stating that there are two groups of intellectuals. The first group is “traditional professional intellectuals” and the second group is the “organic intellectuals”. By stating the word “organic” does he mean that these intellectuals are created naturally? This statement is quite contradictory to Marx’s idea of that all aspects are “inorganic”, nothing in our society is created naturally. Perhaps, because these intellectuals are organic, they are the leeches to our social related problems. Gramsci, more or less, blames our social disorder on these intellectuals. He claims that this social group emerges in every generation and perhaps they are the main reason to why each generation is held down and unable to move forward.

We cal also relate Jamaica Kincaid “Girl” to Raymond Williams and Marx’s ideas and beliefs. We can view the girl as the general public and her mother as the government. We can interpret their relation through Marx and Raymond William’s eyes. The government instructs the public how to behave according to their class status. How does the government achieve this manner? Through schools and more specifically through literature.

Hegemony

The text that we have been reading lately is very stimulating with all the Marxism, Marxists ideas and concepts. This weekend we were assigned to read Antonio Gramsci’s The Intellectuals while paying attention to his particular and influential concept of Hegemony. Dictionary.com’s definition of Hegemony is leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation. So basically how a group of people rule over other people is what we are looking at and this is clearly seen in Gramsci’s The Intellectuals. He starts off right in the beginning stating that there are “the intellectuals”, “organic intellectuals”, and non-intellectuals. Throughout the whole text this idea of Hegemony is visible with intellects, workers, and everyone else. Schooling even comes in and plays a role. “School is the instrument through which intellectuals of various levels are elaborated.” People are getting ranked and put into categories here and there with people at the top ruling them. I don’t know why but I still see people falling into different classes and from a Marxist point of view there shouldn’t be. The other readings we had to do also showed hegemony with “Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy”, “Girl”, and “Dickens’ Great Expectations”. By Looking at things from a Marxist point of view everything actually means something else. It is like there is an ulterior message in things. E.g. all of the things that are pointed out in “Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy.” How Rudolph represents this, Herbie represents that, and even the Abominable Snowman represents something. I always thought Rudolph was just a Christmas story and that it was just made to promote Christmas. Here in the reading they represent Marxist ideas like how Herbie is an elf who wants to be a dentist but he can’t. Then Santa is the leader and he makes everything work. I guess sometimes we need a leader to ensure that things move along and work out smoothly. I only briefly talked about the aspects of Marxism. There were many Marxist things in "Girl" and "Dickens' Great Expectations" as well.

Williams and Gramsci

In order to understand and write about Gramci, I had to research him a bit. I came across some information that was very useful for this assignment. Mainly an article about hegemony, it shed light to Gramsci's meaning of the word. "Gramsci defines hegemony as a form of control exercised by a dominant class, in the Marxist sense of a group controlling the means of production..."(http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/hegemony.html). In my own terms and using my own knowledge from reading the assignments and other materials I can develop this meaning. In my understanding, Gramsci understands hemegony to be the reason why capitalism has not fallen when Marx said it would fall. In Gramsci's own definition of the word the reason for this is blamed on the bourgeoisie.

I want to say much for Williams however, he seems to bore me. That passage from "Marxism and literature" seemed to be of little help at first. Once I painstakingly read through it, I grasped an idea. The third page of Williams's excerpt contains a quote. This quote states,"The ruling ideas are nothing more than the idea of expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.(GI,2)" When I read this I realized that these material relationships are actually the relationships between the bourgeoisie and peasants.

My thoughts up to this point of reading the assigned articles still left me with the feeling of something missing. By missing I mean, the concept of hegemony being the reason why capitalism did not fail by 1846 or so. This feeling of emptiness was fulfilled when I read Jamaica Kincaid's "girl". I'm assuming that this was a very useful tool for myself, in order to create an understanding of my problem. It present a real life example of hegemony in my opinion. After I read "girl" I did not automatically read the Marxist understanding of the story, so that I can develop my own. By taking knowledge from all three readings thus far, I understand that it is simple to create a reason why capitalism did not fall according to Marxist's. When the bourgeoisie was created Marx would say that it was created out of thin air. I would say that Marx believed that because the bourgeoisie threw a wrench in Marx's mathematical equation of when capitalism would end. Marx could not see the future through a crystal ball and therefore could not see this external cause leading to the failure of his life's work. Apparently other Marxists would adopt hegemony as the reason why capitalism did not fail. They would believe that dominant ideas from bourgeoisie and their relationships with peasants would act as logs in a fire that was fueling capitalism into what it is today.

Monday Response

All the Works I read are conveyed in a way that all resemble Williams when he talks about systems of beliefs that are "characteristics of a particular class or group", also "a system of illusory beliefs-false ideas or false consiousness-which can be contrasted with true or scientific knowledge", and also, "The general process of the production of meanings and ideas". All of these ideas have been portrayed in the readings such as 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", Antonio Gramsci's 'The Intellectuals', who's main theme is the influence of hegemony and the broader use of it in all the stories, also on 'girl', and 'A Marxist Critical Reading of Great Expectations". Eachone of these readings embodie the use of what Marx puts as "the separation of groups", into social economical functions.

An example of economical function is in Rudolph's Shiny new economy, that is during the christmas season where there is a great amount of economical prosperity by the rise in buiseness. As the story of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" is used in a kind of advertisement. Although back in my childhood days where in school we had to put on or see shows ofchristma and there had to be Rudolph, I never at that age imagined it would be use as an advertisement to promovate christmas and with this the the big sales that will raise the economy. Nowadays, Rudolph is still used Primary to boost christmas sales but is also an imaginary figure that the new generation is focused on as a hope of bringing the festivities and with this Santa Clause, who will bring toys and gifts for all those good boys and girls, this can be use as a hegemony for chistmas. In Antonio Gramsci's "The Intellectuals", resembles with what william states as different groups that follow a different class, in this case is different groups that construct different intellectuals, there are the "traditional" intellectual that are literary , scientific, mainly every intellectual who has a professional entity. The other kind of intellectuals are the "organic", who are basically any intellectaual with any job concerning their class, this is a way of interacting with different social classes. Although, manytimes the most pofound intellectual fall in the category of "organic", which can be peasants who have a greater experience of life, and are more productive in a sense of the use of hegemony in this category of productive force in the economy. In the story of "Girl", this is an example of what williams puts as "Illusory beliefs-false ideas", the way the mother is telling her daughter of all the "how to do things", she is teaching her all the things she should know on doing as of cooking, cleaning, that are typical in any society where the children learn from the parents, in this case the "girl" from the mother. Although, the false belifs are that she tells the girl not to do inproper things in order to show her resembling a "slut", because the proper teachings are only those that will help her grow up to a better person, and not to ashame her of her values as a women she is going to be.
All of these readings touch on the use of hegemony, on Rudolph the example of "If you don't show, you don't sale", the use of Rudolph as an icon to promote christmas festivities, and with this the raise of economy during the holiday. There are also the intellectuals who are separated in categories, such as different categories of 'genres', and also the Marxist critical reading of great expectations, how the main charater pip, was in depth that show the problem of his economical capital. Also the problem of teaching by the mother in "girl", is used as an example of false Illusory.











t

Hegemony and Capitalism

I really want to understand all of the different concepts and idealogies being read and discussed in class, and the most helpful tactic for me, before reading anything I try to unnderstand what it is that we will be dealing with. "Theories of hegemony attempt to explain how dominant groups or individuals can maintain their power- the capacity of dominate classes to persuade subordinate ones to accept, adopt, and internalize their values and norms." (Wikipedia definition) I found Gramsci much easier to read then Williams but I believe both are dealing with the same concepts.

Gramcsi says," All men are potentially intellectuals in the sense of having an intellect and using it, but not all are intellectuals by social function." He categorizes class in society into two maingroups: the tradtional and the organic. Gramsci sees the intellectual as " performing an essential mediating function in the struggle of class forces...most important...polical struggle."(p 1) I believe we see this very concept in our society today even though we do live in capitalist situation. Why Marx and many philosophers doomed capitalism boggles my mind a bit. To them, the rise of power and money shared with the free individuals of the society would only lead to a major downfall of that society. However their ideas are slightly archaic in thinking that for a society to be truly free there should be no idea of personal freedom. Why is it then that capitalism has not met its downfall? I truly believe it is because we are all stronger as free individuals then given credit.

I wasn't quite sure at first why reading many different stories would help understand, Marx and his ideas of class and their struggles, but upon completion do feel I have a better understanding. "Marxists regard literature as both production and reflection of and on culture and society and political world in order to change it... Marxists agree that literature is produced in material conditions, that it reflects back upon those conditions and can help to change them." (p 103 Modern Literary Theory) In Great Expectations this is most definitely applied. Dickens uses his book to illustrate the two syptoms of class struggle that he himself suffered from: work and debt. Also dealing with idea of captialism is the Marxist reading of "Rudolph the red-nosed Reindeer". This illustrates how something so simple such as Christmas has become a driven capitalistic machine. Is this necessarily a bad thing though? I mean, the Christmas sales boost our economy tremendously each year, so does it matter if the reindeer kids didn't intially except Rudolph? Are we being so analytical here that we actually draw reference to the huge scary teeth of the Abominal Snowman as the clinches of the Christmas season taking a huge bite out of our wallets?
The reading of Girl touches on the idea of class and capitalism a little differently for me. It seems to tie into the Marxist idea a bit more in the fact that the mother teaches the girl that you are in the class you were born into, however you can raise the market value of yourself " in the subsequent exchange of her body and labor for an acceptable place in society as wife/domestic... Neither the mother or the daughter can escape social order." (p 1)That's probably because of all the contradictions being taught and learned, rather then being oppressed and kept down. The
mother teaches the daughter, in essence, how to be a slut without the consequences (pregnancy). The mother wants the girl to act proper and strive for the best in life and yet that most certainly isn't the message perceived by the girl when being told to use men and almost exploit them for personal gain. "The girl will go nowhere, within or beyond the narrative of what her work-her life- entails. She is without any means for social advancement; she will always need to make ends meet." (p3) This is because she has not been taught anything usesful to actually progress her intellect or strive for success. In the world of capitalism, you need to take advantage of all the resources we have to better ourselves, not being a slut, that won't get you anywhere but on the welfare line with a child clinging to each leg.

9/24/07-

After reading Antonio Gramsci’s The Intellectuals, there appears an influential concept of hegemony that is present in ‘Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy’ and ‘Girl’ and ‘A Marxist Critical Reading of Great Expectation’. Collectively these works embody Williams’s concept of Marxist ideology, ultimately helping to bring awareness and value to such literary works.
Gramsci states that “All men are potentially intellectuals in the sense of having an intellect and using it, but not all are intellectuals by social functions” (p1). The social functions described here can be looked upon as fetters set upon us by our own society. The fetters constitute the very concept of hegemony, which are the social, cultural, ideological, or economical influence exerted by a dominant group.
Hegemony is heavily present in ‘Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy’. With the in depth Marxist reading of the work, we get a Marxist ideological understanding of the all the distinct characters that embody the forward movement into Communism. Alone, Rudolph is useless, due to his radical deformed red nose. Alone, Herbie is nothing more than “an elf… who doesn’t fit into the elf norm since he would rather be a dentist than work at the traditional elf occupation”. Alone, Yukon is just an unsuccessful prospector. Alone the Abominable Snowmonster, is nothing more than a scary monster. With the role of the Santa, which plays as a social function, the characters join a collective (communistic) force, so as to make Christmas happen. In the end they are nothing more than an equal product of labor force. The Marxist message here is simply that of the Three Musketeers; “All for one, and one for all.”

Hegemony is also present in Kincaid’s ‘Girl’. It is very clear that there is a bigger picture than the relationship between a mother and a daughter. On a grand spectrum, the mother embodies the social restraint put forward by the society on an individual. The society molds the individual from the way one eats to the way one spits.
In ‘A Marxist Critical Reading of Great Expectations’ it is very clear that the protagonist Pip is facing a class struggle, work and debt. And as Marx’s puts it “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”(p, 1). Which is non-the-less characterized by the very concept of hegemony.
The most important aspect of all literature is criticism. Criticism opens doors to many questions. Without the proper frame of reference, and conceptual background knowledge, a reader cannot scope in and out of any literary work, as a means to make room for questions and proper criticism.

The Marxist Ananlysis

Williams’ text, Gramsci's “The Intellectuals”, the Marxist criticisms of Rudolph, Dickens and Kincaid: the one most prominent message I found being repeated throughout all these readings was the same one found in Marx and Engel’s The German Ideology, that class distinction would be the downfall of society.

Williams and Gramsci basically paraphrase Marx’s ideas in their individual pieces. The former (Williams) makes sure to reiterate the points brought up in The German Ideology. He brings back to us the idea of how division of labor established by the upper class is the root of the problem. Gramsci takes a slightly different approach, stating that society is divided as it is because we, the people, treat others with higher praise and esteem than others, the intellects and philosophers for instance, when such distinctions are not only unnecessary but problematic. His mention of history and its part (that of passing on the separation of classes from generation to generation) in this scheme is another notion found in the Marx and Engel writing.

What really caught my attention were the story critiques, viewing them with a Marxist eye. This held especially true for the Communistic translation of “Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer”. As a child, I grew up watching this cartoon quite often, almost ritualistically, during the holiday seasons. Alongside “Frosty the Snowman”, it had been a Christmas favorite of mine. So, understandably, this completely different outlook on it particularly interests me. I would never have thought of the socio-economic subplot within the story, and yet, reading this article, it seems almost too obvious. Particularly when it came to comparing the elves to third world country factory workers or identifying the Abominable Snow monster as “a worker to generate surplus value”. We come across more examples of the cons of a capitalist economy in the Dickens analysis in the form of Pip and his attempt to climb up in the social ladder even though “he cannot transcend the limitations put on him by the class he was born into.”

The readings of Williams and Gramsci ?

In the readings of williams and Gramsci a long with the other readings as well where found to be similar but different.



Williams wrote mainly about Ideology as consquence of division of labor. Another subject he touched basics on was the social and economic growths within a society. For me it seemed as though all the readings made each other come to life. For example, in the readings of Antonio Gramsci he touched bascis on a little of everything from Ideology, social class, economic political and Intellectual status with in a community. Gramsci made me want to read more after he made the comment that " All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the funtion of intellectuals ". While reading this it made realize that he believes everyone is an interllectual on their on primises and just because your not a part of an elite group doesn't mean your not a key player on the team. He believes however big or small the part of production you shared an important role in the conditioning process. In every social class there are differnt sets of intellectualls so all though together something seperates you to make you unique in your own way. Ecclesiastics ( clergy men) was thought to be one of the most prominent groups of ntellectuals because their extensive knowledge of the philosophy of the past to present science of age.



To answer the quetsion of what was the least useful in the literary readings I would say I learned a little something from each reading. I think that literature primarily the Marxist readings coinside with history.

24.9.07 post

Overall I had difficulty understanding both major works that we read. I don’t quite understand what difference it makes on how an intellectual is made or how they are categorized makes a difference in how literature is made, or interpreted. Beyond influence I don’t understand how this has to do with literature. I understand the concept of hegemony which Gramsci refers too and that term directly correlates to the reading about Christmas and the reading by Kincaid. In the piece by Kincaid, named “Girl”, the piece, in my opinion, is about how to raise a daughter. The piece is mainly fragmented and I think it is done on purpose because doing it in this context makes it almost like a list giving it a surreal but also enlightening effect on the reader. While reading it I though it was rather bland until the line “this is how to make a button-hole for the button you have just sewed on; this is how to hem a dress when you see the hem coming down and so to prevent yourself from looking like the slut I know you are so bent on becoming.” I thought this line is the most provocative line in the text because it gives a characteristic which then brings up a value, in her being a person bent on being a slut, and it also shows that the girl wants to become a slut. This piece could also be seen as rules, in which these rules and mediated by the larger force of the society or media. This is more blatant in the fact that the writer tells you that these systems for consumerism are in place and that we are subjected to them, unknowingly, and we abide by them. It also shows how something as innocent as Rudolph can actually be a very powerful tool to make certain that these systems stay in place.

Post Six- Williams and Gramsci

In Raymond Williams' argument, he states that Marxist readings have three main concepts which are: a system of beliefs akin to a group, a system of beliefs that are opposite the beliefs of the group, and the creation of products, physical or otherwise. Furthermore, he goes on to say that these three concepts are not exclusive to Marx. This idea can be seen in other pieces of literature, even one that isn't ideological at the surface.
Girl by Jamaica Kincaid exhibits the three concepts that Williams has mentioned, as the girl does things such as cooking and laundry for the family in order for it to exist as one unit. There are also citations of little do's and don't's, such as soaking a salt fish overnight before cooking it, which can be considered to be a parallel to real beliefs Vs false beliefs. In terms of the latter, the girl asks "is it true that you sing benna in Sunday school?", questioning a potential belief that could be held by the girl. This is relative to William's main argument, as Girl is not, by any means, an intentionally Marxist reading, but Marxist ideas found in literature, which again, is the argument that Williams is making.
Antonio Gramsci's philosophy is similar to Marxism in that Gramsci believes that he believes that people are all intelligent and can serve their function in a community to make it whole. However, unlike Marx, Gramsci's philosophy places people into two different categories, the "traditionally intelligent" and the "organically intelligent", where Marx would chide this sort of thinking in favor of a more unitarian model of society with everyone doing everything for everyone with no major difference amongst the people.
Again, using Kincaid's Girl, Gramsci's philosophy is much more apparent here, as the "traditionally intelligent" are the people who impart advice about cooking and cleaning, and the "organic thinkers" are people like the girl who apply this advice to their own tasks of cooking and cleaning. While there are two different philosophies that are apparent, they are both easy to find within a simple text of a girl doing everyday chores.

Post on Williams and Gramisci

Willams and Gramisci literary works on Marxism were very intriguing. Williams wrote about ideology and the three senses. What I got out of this reading is Williams was comparing Marx and Engles studies to the past, and philosophical ideas that relate to ideology. I found Gramsci’s work more interesting. He writes about intellectuality and how he states that “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men in society the function of intellectuals”(pg.5). To me he is saying that as humans we all have our own minds that wander and think, we all have our own philosophy’s about how the world should be and where it is at. But we accept certain “intellectuals” to be seen as intellectuals and basically call everyone else non-intellectuals when non-intellectuals don’t exist. We people create this idea of certain people being intellectuals, but deep inside we are all “philosophers”. We all have our own morals and virtues that make us who we are, but as a society we listen to other people that also have their own morals and virtues and consider them to be right because they are “intellectuals”. Now comes the question of what does this al have to do with literature? The way I see it is that the study of ideology and thinking, and all the fact that we all are intellectuals with our own philosophy is what creates the ideas behind all literature. Whether its fiction or non-fiction there is a mind behind all literature. What we were taught or took in ourselves and how our minds were developed will determine how we think and spark ideas that create literature.

Marxism...contd.

Clearly all four readings, as well as last week's 'Marxism and Literature', relate to Marxism in that they discuss social class, labels, and the economy.
In 'Rudolph's Shiny New Economy', a new perspective of looking at this story was brought to light (personally, at least). Learning from my mother at a young age that the only purpose of Christmas was to spoil children and boost the economy, I was able to read 'Rudolph' and concur with everything that was analyzed. Not only does this story depict the Christmas season as "Silver and Gold" (all about the economy profiting from gifts bought), but it also depicts the form of social class, per se, that Rudolph, his elf friend Herbie, and Yukon Cornelius fall into. Rudolph wasn't accepted by the other reindeer because he had a glowing red nose; Herbie wasn't accepted by his elf friends because not only did he lack the common elf features but he wanted to be a dentist; and Yukon was unsuccessfully attempting to be a capitalist. These three characters were the outcasts in Christmastown. Although Marxism discusses how in a communist society no classes may exist in favor of the economy, in the end, Rudolph and his colleagues were "the force which enables the Christmas economy to exist, which brings consumer and consumed together" (para. 16).
Analyzing Jamaica Kincaid's 'Girl', one can depict a mother teaching her probable adolescent daughter the characteristics of being prim and proper, yet at the same time, this mother is degrading her daughter by calling her a "slut". One can characterize the mother as being the greater power in this story, and the daughter as a lesser one; therefore, each character falls into two seperate social labels. Here is when Antonio Gramsci's essay titled 'The Intellectuals' comes into place. He discusses hegemony, which is the sort of dominance a particular social group in society takes upon another. Falling perfectly into Kincaid's brief story, the girl's mother treats her daughter in a hegemonical sort of way.
In the end, what can we take from all these readings in relation to a Marxist criticism? Although puzzling, we can conclude that social order, (Rudolph saving Christmas, the girls mother teaching her how to be a lady - or a slut), is a product of labor and work in a society.

In the beginning the problem I had with the Williams piece understanding how exactly it ties into the Marx piece “The German Ideology”. It was hard throughout the beginning of Williams to see a relation between the point Marx was trying to make which was the abolition of the class system/individuals and the creation of the unit as one, and Williams, that to me seemed to discuss the definition and origins of the term ideology. Though Williams does note on some of the similar terms as Marx i.e. Material process etc., and quotes him often, I failed to see where the two connect.
The closest connection that I was able to recognize in the beginning half of Williams to Marx is where Williams speaks about freeing ordinary assumptions of Social questions relating to the history of a certain group. It was not until further towards the end of Williams where the relation became a little clearer in the quote “Ideology was specifically identified as a consequence of division of labor” this relates somewhat to Marx who felt that the division of labor created social and economical unrest within a society. The synapses really began to fire with the quote “…. But ideology then hovers between a system of belief characteristics of a certain class and the system of illusory beliefs...” this relates back to the German Ideology which Marx states that classes are a man made item, they are not natural or inherent to the nature of men making them almost fake or a façade. The Marx and Williams Pieces go hand in hand because the Communist Ideology is what will influence the proletariat revolt against the bourgeoisie and ruling class. Understanding the definition and origins of thought behind the term ideology will help us better decipher the success and failures of Communism.

Classification is as classification does

“We are (to a large extent) as we see ourselves reacted to by others.” A psychologist by the name of Charles Cooley developed the concept of what he called “the looking glass self” and coined the above phrase to, which I have paraphrased, encapsulate his philosophy on the formation of self image. At first glance the most obvious implications are that our image is greatly influenced by the way we feel we are received by our peers. But I feel it also reveals something inherent in the human condition that is useful for our discussion. That is the need to belong to a group. Be you punk or goth, republican or democrat, Lambda-Lambda-Lambda or Omega-Mu, or even Homo Erectus or Ursas Horribles, the need to be a part of a group is so strong it borders on compulsion.

But does all this hyper classification really help the individual understand the world around them? Firstly to accept any label is also to accept the labeler’s power over you. For just as any contribution serves to define it’s group so do the rules of the group define its members. To accept a label as truth is also to accept a power relationship proposed by the inventor of the label. This brings with it an implication of Hegemony, for if I agree to recognize everything by a set of rules and definitions that you hand me, do you not have power over me? And by and large that has consistently been the easier path, to complacently agree to the system we were born into as the effective truth and do what we can to pass it on. Now what happens when the circumstances that gave birth to that system of classification are no longer in place to ensure the systems validity?

I personally see no difference between everyday social labels, scientific classification, and genre. These are all systems of ordering informational experiences that are presumed to still be valid and are rarely if ever challenged. Furthermore and perhaps most importantly they succeed only in providing limits. Armed with these preconceived notions we are only free to explore within boundaries. And by accepting these boundaries we are only accepting erroneous power relationships that fetter progress and only satisfy our compulsion for the illusion of control over our environment and freedom to be efficacious in response to it.

Communism and Classism Everywhere

Understanding that the assignment was to read and respond to two readings I couldn't help but notice that one of the Marx readings serves well when you’re looking for answers. I'm still very early into things but so far the concept of communism according to Marx and the story on Rudolph the red nosed reindeer seem to tie in with me, I say this because communism is ultimately about helping the economy while Marx's interpretation of the tale clearly shows that the only important thing here is yet again helping the economy.

This got me thinking about how commercialized the idea of Christmas has become. I remember watching most of the TV specials mentioned as a child I just thought they were there to help celebrate the season, as I grew older though I saw that it was all extra hoopla designed to hype people up over holidays and seeing certain commercials because it was a certain time of year. All the characters have there own obvious representation the rebel, the person who wants to be accepted and then finally the abominable snow man who didn’t really seem to me like a person at all but communism coming to town and though obviously "vicious" in some aspects because of its main goal of monetary value without regard for peoples individuality or welfare.

Though in the end he is "tamed" by having his teeth removed to me it felt like even if the issue had been resolved it was still there. Just because the abominable snow man no longer had his menacing teeth didn’t make him someone else, just like with the idea of countries that are ruled by governments who say they are not communist, socialist ect. Even if they may not identify themselves as such if they believe and follow certain ideas this doesn’t make them any different to a government that admits who they are and what they represent. In other words all variations of government are exactly the same, with core ideas in common. Though America is seen as a Capitalist Country besides the class system varying by three instead of two the principals are basically the same.

Which brings me to the concept of hegemony the basic idea behind this to me was that even if the concept was somehow different as far as the way governments are run or belief systems go they all stem from a particular idea. In example religion for instance. Though Catholics and Muslims may not believe the same ideas to a tee at the end of the argument there is a belief in one divine being.

Next we have the analysis of "Girl" I don’t know if this was done on purpose but the fact that the text had no sense of order and was just running into itself made me think of perhaps the idea of an uncivilized country or group of people. Also the ideas were scattered in the passage, though the mother has a set of rules she wants her daughter to go by they are contradictory in some cases. On one hand she wants to teach the girl how to be a proper lady but she is telling her that it is okay to have sex with a man outside of a relationship as long as she does not get pregnant. Classism ties in with both the stories because in each there are characters looking to advance themselves but in some cases cannot and will not be able to. In Rudolph’s case in the end he may be able to lead Santa's Sleigh but even with this he is still this freakish red nosed reindeer that represents the mass consumerism and consumption of Christmas. The daughter in "Girl" is always going to be in the lower class because of what her mother has taught her. Her domestic duties and her mothers direction will continue to perpetuate the way she behaves as Marx puts it

The girl will go nowhere, within or beyond the
narrative of what her work––her life––entails. She is without any means for social advancement;
she will always need to “make ends meet."

She will be doomed to repeat the same behaviors. Capitalism was doomed because according to Marx though it may temporarily satisfy the need to increase revenue among consumers the end result is something that is usually not discussed. Going back to the story of Rudolph, after Christmas is over no one is considering the after affects, such as debt due to over spending for the sake of a holiday. Capitalism has to do with social class as long as these man made classes exist some form of it will continue to flourish. As a whole it failed but the ideas and foundation are alive especially here in America. Gramsci states

All men are potentially intellectuals in the sense of having an intellect and using it, but not all are intellectuals by social function

Meaning that people are basically chosen based on their social class not their intelligence level and placed in certain classes. We are all capable of using our given talents and smarts but may be limited or convince ourselves that based on where we stand that we are some how disadvantaged and stuck in a sphere.

As far as how this all ties in with literature goes i felt that this all had to do with both social class and form, social class because in a way it is easy to tell who stories like "Girl" are directed towards, where as “Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy” and the Dickens do as well. Form because based on the voice of the narration you may be able to tell who is being portrayed speaking wise, authors may used certain types of language in order to come through as more authentic to their audiences

For Class on 9/24

For Monday's class, read Antonio Gramsci's essay 'The Intellectuals' in the links to the right, paying particular attention to his particular and influential concept of Hegemony. Consider the following: What does Gramsci mean by this , and what might it have to do with the critical question of why, if capitalism was clearly doomed to imminent failure in 1846, it seems to continue? How does a Marxist explain this problem with Marxism?

Also read over the 'Marxist Readings' on the list, paying particular attention to Jamaica Kincaid's 'Girl' (the text is available there as well). The link to the actual Marxist reading of the story is at the bottom of the 'Marxist Literary Readings: Jamaica Kincaid's "Girl"' page, though the background is useful as well.

Then, in a 250-400 word response, respond generally to Williams (which you should have read for last Wednesday) and the Gramsci, and also think about the 'Marxist readings' specifically: what is most useful in these literary readings and what is least? That is, what does this all have to do with literature?

Also, several of the responses for 9/19 were far too brief. Remember that this is a 'w' course: if your response is less than 250 words, it will not count for credit.

Marxist Response

What does "accidental", mean in the context Marx uses it in?, This is a word or phrase that Marx repeats it many times throughout his writings, to my opinion "accidental", can be seen as a casualty, eventhough one might not want it, but it just happens. This is an example as in the second paragraph, where I and another classmate where given to translate. My idea was that how Marx uses the term "accidental", as something that happen back in history that was meant for him whithout him even knowing it, this according to Marx, was not cosidered "accidental" back then but was cosideredered in the present. This is again on using the word "accidental", as a way of coinsidence, for example a person who gains a fortune by a distance family member ho died and have no one else to leave his will, then as a way of "accidental" consequence the fortune is left for him. the word "accidental", therefore is not always used to signify danger, but it can also be used as happiness. Marx uses this term "accidental" as something happening to someone either back in history, or in present times, but is meant as 'faith' that steps in an makes things happen that wherent expected.

marx, friend or foe?

• How is personal freedom only achieved in a community?

One of Marx's big issues is the matter of freedom. According to him, personal freedom can only be achieved in a communist community where everyone is working equally and gaining equal rewards from their work. You may say, in fact, even I say that this view is iffy at best. How can freedom be achieved, personal freedom no less, in a situation where everyone is forced to be exactly the same? Automatons just going about their lives in "perfect" harmony. Where's the freedom in that, Marx?
Marx's response is that in any other situation other than the communist community, there will always be somebody keeping you down. In the typical caste, or even social class system, there is a higher and lower class; with the former in control either loosely or directly of the latter. Marx believes that communism would correct this by eliminating social classes. For if there is no higher class, there is noone to oppress, and by extension noone to be oppressed. Like the rest, of Marx's ideas, this looks good on paper but doesn't really work in practice. A pity.

The problem of terminology: Why are the terms so abstract? Why so few ‘real world’ examples?

By now it should be safe to say that we all know that the abstract terms that Marx uses doesn’t actually mean what the mean but they actually mean something else. Terminology was a great problem when dealing with this text and a possible reason that most likely explains why he wrote the way he did is because he wrote it a long time ago. He wrote it in 1846 which is about 161 years ago and that was probably the way that people spoke or maybe the terms that he uses were what he had on his mind. It would be difficult to use real world examples because over time things change. But that doesn’t really explain much because that is just a guess. Marx could have made things a lot easier so that everyone could understand it with no problem but he didn’t. He could have used simpler words and context. Who was the target audience that Marx was writing to? The way he wrote things only really educated people could understand it. Another possible conclusion that he used abstract terms is so that people would focus more and think about something in particular. So it is kind of like he is putting emphasize on an idea by using a weird word.

What is the contradiction they are talking about throughout the text? (response 5)

The contradiction I believe Marx and Engels are discussing throughout The German Ideology is that between the productive forces of labor and the form of intercourse. It is this contradiction that Marx blames for the upper class’s exploitation of the working class and the rise and inevitable fall of capitalism in Europe. It is my understanding that the productive forces refer to the combination of human labor and means of labor, such as machinery and tools, which lies in the hands of the worker. The form of intercourse is directly related to the division of labor that allows the upper class to control the worker and profit from him while destroying the system that sustains him. As the form of intercourse changes and the means of labor shift due to the greed of the upper class, the worker loses his place and livelihood. Marx says that this conflict has historically lead to revolution among the displaced and disgruntled working class and will continue to do sure, therefore ensuring that capitalism eventually fails. This contradiction is at its essences a conflict between the poor and rich, while the poor supply the labor, the rich control it and therefore there will never be harmony unless the distribution of labor is done equally.

What was the main idea Marx was trying to get through?

I saw someone else already answered this question, but I just wanted to add something to his. I think Marx's main idea was to make the government richer and thus, more powerful. Individuals could not own or rent lands. This restricted one's ability to do business and make money. Transportation system and credit were centralized to the government. The gap between poor and the not-so-poor was even closer thanks to heavy progressive income taxes. (meaning that the more you make, the higher the tax rate. it's quite similar to our tax system, it's just more progressive, rates are steeper for higher income) With all these, the state could become more powerful than the rest of the country. This structure reminded me of the proletariats and bourgeoisie: the ones that sell their labor and the ones that need those labor for the land that they own.

· How is personal freedom only achieved in a community?

From my weak understanding of Marxism, I will attempt to respond to this question. One thing for sure, I must grasp the concept of ‘personal freedom’ in relation to Marx, and how a ‘community’ can help achieve personal freedom.
Marx’s excerpts from The German Ideology depict the context in which personal freedom has existed. He states that “…personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class (bourgeoisie), and only in so far as they were individuals of this class (p, 21). According to Marx, this is a ‘Historical fact’. This, in tern becomes an idea or a concept that through time and can be applied in a different time period, or context. For instance, if we are to answer this question through the use of two separate classes, class A and B. The scenario is set. How would class A (Proletarian) overturn Class B (Bourgeoisie), in a society ruled by Class B.?
Marx would argue that a revolution must take place. A revolution brought by Class A against B. He describes a revolution as “…contradiction of consciousness, battle of ideas or a political conflict” (p, 21). Marx would also argue that there needs to be a vehicle in which Class A can carry out a revolution. And he adds “This is not possible without the community. Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible” (p, 21). Only with the help of a community can ideas be channeled through and reached out to the masses. A community has its own vehicles such as a culture, certain religion, or other beliefs, cults and even politics. Only a community can raise the awareness of change on a collective spectrum.
Then again, the concept of ‘personal freedom’ also varies. As it pertains to Marx, this ‘awareness of change on a collective spectrum; has a lot of utilitarian subcomponents. The utilitarian approach would provide the greatest good for the greatest number. The discoveries of many communities who share a similar vision constitute the greatest good. And this discovery can ultimately create change and overthrow the other class, insofar causing a revolution, and later creating a new system of classes. Nevertheless, personal freedom has been achieved, and a new status quo is established. Through duration of time, the status quo will inevitably be disturbed as a natural phenomenon, and according to Marx, another revolution will take place.

My question to the Professor

I am a bit confused Professor Henkle on the ideaology of Marxism. It seems like Marx deals a lot with the idea of societies and class systems, but what exctly is his message? He seems to be against the bourgeousie who runs the order of things in the state, and speaks about the proletariats which should uprise aginst them, but then the idea of his whole philosophy is communism which is a unified state (although we all know what that became in the Soviet Union), with no individuality at all...help! I'm definitely confused. Does he want class within the unified state? Because he says something about speaking to people only about productive forces in the same material group...? I'm not sure...

What does he mean when he refers to the "division" particulary within an individual?

After reading the text for a couple of times, what I think “division” particularly within a person means is that all individuals are divided internally between either working alone and succeeding ahead (wealth) or working and being successful as a unit. This idea is implied through when Marx states that “the transformation, through the division of labour , of personal powers into material powers, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from one's mind”. Additionally, this “division” can be witnessed in today’s world. For example, we have individualist countries such as America and collectivist countries such as China.
The division is specifically concentrated in the area of labor.
He further continues on how we should abolish the “division of labour”. We should refrain from subjective beliefs and only accomplish aspects that benefit the community as a whole. In this circumstance, working hand in hand with your fellow man is the superior choice. This notion is illustrated through when he says in the first paragraph that “ Communism….. treats all natural premises as the creature of men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of individuals related.” What he means is that communism will cause individuals to unite and end the internal division that exists within individuals. Perhaps, this internal division is the cause of history repeating it self and causing each generation more and more dilemma.

What does "accidental" mean in the context Marx uses it in?

When Marx says accidental he is referring to the means in which a person acquires something without it exactly having been earned by that person. It is through fate or luck, though, that he or she received it. Marx uses this word a lot in context to what one generation inherited from the preceding one, more specifically the ideas and methodology of that generation which would ultimately lead to the separation of classes.

From reading the (very cryptic and repetitive) text, I would be inclined to believe that Karl mentions the inherited beliefs as accidental because we do not obtain these them of our own free will. It’s like they were just in the way, left by the previous generation, building up in mass and size with each passing generations, and we rammed into them. We shape our entire society upon these found beliefs, including and most importantly, the class distinction, which separates us all. This is what Marx really wants to bring our attention to. Because of the past shaping our present, because of years and years of “competition and struggle of individuals among themselves”, we have a separation of classes dividing and categorizing us all, between the higher and lower classes. It’s very possible that that accident might also refer to which class we were born into, whether into the bourgeoisie or into serfdom.

I think, in the end, that Marx is pretty much inviting us to transcend these “accidentally inherited” beliefs in favor of newer, more practical ones of our own choosing in order to avoid these kinds of segregations.

Post for Sept 20th

In the piece by Marx and Engle they talk about fetters which I think are important. These fetters are important (in their perspective) because they pretty much shape the way we do things in every perspective of our lives. In paragraph two of our translation we translated that these fetters come partly from our parents and the generations that came before. It also says that these chains become harder and harder to break, almost like a bad habit. What is worse is that everyone you know is doing it, and not just everyone you know, it’s everyone. Now that everyone is doing it, it becomes accepted and this chain becomes even harder to break because if you do oppose it you will face a lot of adversity between your peers. These fetters could be anything also. They could be ideology, mind set, job, values, morals, expressions, and an overall way everyone expresses themselves. In a capitalist society people are taught that to get anywhere in life they must work, or more recently go to school, get a degree, then get a job. These are things that control our life and we are raised to believe that these things are the way things are supposed to be, opposing this sort of thing would get you a lot of negative attention. A good past example of something that was changed due to radical revolution would be segregation. People were taught that this was right and the way things should be, until things started to change. The same thing is happening now in America regarding atheists.

Post Five- How is personal freedom only achieved in a community?

Personal freedom is, according to Marx, only achieved in a community where the people of the working class have overthrown the upper class that oppress them, and govern themselves to the point of equality. Everyone in a Marxist community is equal right down to the tee, where there are no differences amongst the people. Personal freedom is basically freedom from any sort of oppression, though if everyone was working together towards equality, the “personal” part of “personal freedom” might be somewhat of a contradiction, as true equality, as Marx would want it, would actually strip away any sort of personality. I suppose in that context, what he means by “personal freedom” is the unified, personal desire for freedom of the proletariat, as if the ultimate goal of a member of the proletariat class is to be free of any and all oppression.

However, if this question were to be asked after stripping away the entire Marxist viewpoint, the answer would be quite different, though not entirely. The idea behind Marxism is for a community to work together for independence and unity, asking this question upon removing any sort of Marxist ideology would remove the unity portion of Marx’s idea of a community. A non-Marxist would define “personal freedom” as an achievement of your own goals independently. The culmination of non-Marxist “personal freedom” though a community could be seen as a township of any kind which contains people who provide different goods and services to you to help you in achieving your “personal freedom”, as the community would work together, just not all that unified as everyone helps everyone, but everyone is really just trying to live their own lives, rather than weaving together a tight-knit network of people that act as a single unit, as the Marx would call for. Were you to change the context of the question, the answer would be different, but really not all that different.

A modern day example of paragraph 5 would be Iraq. With the Invasion/Occupation of American forces, there has been a call by mainly Western Societies that Iraq becomes a more industrialized democracy. Political Scientist from all over the world have given there two cents on what is necessary for Iraq to become a full fledge democracy. The problem with democracy, like communism, is it is hard to nurture it from the infancy stage if it does not have three things support of the masses, support of the elites, and some form of cash flow, Iraq lacks two of the three necessary. They lack support of the masses, which is evident through the lack of faith in the govt., the increasing insurgent violence, and a bit downhearted about occupation of American troops.
Iraq is also a nation build on a strong Muslim culture, a culture that is very strict on Social expression. There is a serious conflict when that type culture clashes with an ideology that emphasizes on the freedom of expression. Other Muslim zealot nations are demanding Iraq to remain true its roots This creates a quagmire for Iraq, if they resort back to the oppressive nature of their previous culture, and risk losing the support of the U.S., or do they westernize themselves and risk of losing their culture. There is much to be gained from westernizing, but there is also a lot that can be lost by losing ones culture.

Why will capitalism fall?

According to Marx and Engles capitalism will fall due to the simple fact that rich upper class business owners plan on getting richer. By doing this they plan on investing their money in newer innovations that will help make and save more money on labor. The idea is tha the bourgeois spends more money on technology and other means in order to save money and create more poverty. Marx belived that people in society is broken down into two groups, the bourgeois(upper class) and the proletarian (lower class). During Marx’s time most of the “Western World” was undergoing the industrial revolution where changes are seen in labor. Rather than labor being done by hand and use of many workers, new machines and technology helped create a faster production and less use of labor making businss owners richer. The upper class (the bourgeois) began to see a surplus in their businesses, but instead of using that money towards the workers, they used that money to invest in newer and better inovations and technology to help decrease the money in labor.

Both Marx and Engles agreed that capitalism may double the income of the rich, but at the same time it lowers the proletarian’s wealth. They believed that through time there will be such a difference between the bourgeois and the proletarian (lower class) that the proletarian will rise up and start a revolution agianst the bourgeois. The outcome with the proletraians victorious and the end of captialism; and then the start of socialism. So captialsm will fall because of the fact that through time the lower class will be so poor that the price of living will be at a high which will force a revolution agianst the upper class.


To answer this question I used this website, weekly.ahram.org.ed/2003/653/op43.html

What does productive forces refer to?

At first I was under the impression that "Productive Forces" had something to do with the government and the work you may do for it, however upon further research I found out I was misinformed. According to Wkipedia "Productive Forces" are defined as the use of mental power/physical labor to achieve an outcome. Marx however believed that unless these powers were controlled by actual people that they weren’t of any true use. That without human labor the value would become less and less if not completely be destroyed. Think of it as a personal health issue. Your symptoms may start off small, but constantly ignoring them and neglecting your overall wellbeing will cause more problems than they solve. Marx believed that the productiveness of a community was based on cooperation. What I took from this was that if people were no longer willing to cooperate and follow the ideas of what was meant to a productive force they could be replaced or controlled by machines.

the power of property ownership to command human energy and labour-time, and thus of inanimate "things" to exert an autonomous power over people.

The idea of "Productive Forces" may not have initially been meant to encourage communism but its basic Idea does exactly that. Communism is built on the notion that in order to be a successful community you must be unified and without any outside originality the whole idea is meant to control people regardless of being in the interest of gaining capital and ultimately help the economy.

Post 5- German Ideology

What does he mean when he refers to the 'division,' particulary within an individual?

After reading the German Ideology by Karl Marx Friedrich Engels you come across many interesting words and phrases used by both authors. One term they refer to in the piece is 'division' and I asked myself what he actually means when he says that. You see him use this term when he says in the reading,"The transformation, through the division of labour, of personal powers(relationships) into material power, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from ones mind, but only by the action of individuals in again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the 'division' of labour." For me after seeing this quote i was thinking to myself what is he actually trying to tell the reader? I think what Marx and Engels is trying to say is that we should fight for what we believe in. I believe the word 'division' in this paragraph means the seperation between two different groups, and labour meaning the working class. So combing those two terms hes referring to the wealthier and the poorer class being seperated by personal powers. In life we see everyday how people are always seperated by who they are, what they do, or how much money they make in life. The only way to change that is by taking your own actions into your own hand and elimiante that seperation barrier between both groups. So both authors are trying to tell us until this transformation occurs there will always be that 'divison of labour' between all people.

What is the main idea Marx is trying to get through ?

I think the idea of communism and individuality was to keep the rich 'Rich' and to keep the poor 'Poor'. Which in having this type of view only one type of people would always survive life and that would be the rich. A life lived like that is the most horrible to live because you wouldn't be able to better yourself or move into the upper class because you would be permently stagnated as a lower class citizen. Marx wanted the political and socialist to have complete rule over the people which causes the lower class to have no individual opinion on any matters that concern them but would be simply left in the hands of others whom knowingly have none of the poor folks concerns at hand.

When one thinks about it would you say we live in that type of world now? My answer would be yes we as a people are broken into social classes, upper class, middle class and lower class people. And in my opinion we are controlled by the upper class rich people . For example, Have you ever witness a poor man become president and be able to dictate what happens in America? NO you have not. Almost all if not all of our president came from an upper class family that was accepted enough socially that their peers ' other rich folk such as themselves gave that president a try. If they where not that socially inclined I don't think they would've stood the chance. Only because I believe the theory still stands of the "rich staying rich" and the "poor staying poor". Just like Marx the people that serve us believe in some of the same theories of life.

How is personal freedom acheived in a community?

It is extremely hard for someone born in 1981 to ponder the thought of personal freedom being acheived solely from their community . However, Marx and his ideas came from a much different time period then the one I was born in, and I am trying to really grasp his ideas of freedom with their being no aspect of individuality.
Marx believes that the idea of class should be eradicated entirely, leaving it up to nature. The era in which Marx lived was a time of the really rich (bourgeousie) and the peasants, and not much in between. How much better it would be, so he thought, that everyone could be on the same level of class and financial standing. If everyone was of the same social status then everyone would be happy and basking in the glory of being a unified state. I truly believe that Marx was trying to create a government and state where the citizens would all be working to obtain the same goal of being a profit weilding state, with peaceful and loyal subjects who all profited from their labor that aided the countries profits. In theory, this would lead to achieving the goal of freedom within the community, not as individuals.
The conflicting question that keeps running through my mind is did Marx foresee what would become of his idealogy? Did he forsee the iron curtain and opression that woud fall on the lives of millions of people that he thought would indeed be set free by his ideas? Could it be possible that his idea was innocent and naive when he thought that people should all be the same? How can we be free without individuality? We now know for certain, that that is most definitely not possible as it has been proved in history. The one thing I pray, is that this idea of Marx, does not repeat itself in the future, because as he speaks about fetters, I most certainly can't even phathom the future societies being chained down under persecution of such a monstrosity of an idea such as freedom in communities.

Note on the Marx Translation

I've added the last of the translated paragraphs to the Marx 'translation.' It's quite interesting, so be sure to have a look.

What happens when we try to understand Marx out of his context? What is that context?

In my attempts to translate Marx into a form of essay easier to understand I came upon several roadblocks. Context was the worst of them. It was not just as easy as merely looking up a confusing word from the text in a dictionary and then injecting that definition in place of that word in the original text. All that did was give me sentences like: “It follows from all we have been saying up till now that the (of or relating to a small, often rural community whose members share work and income and often own property collectively) relationship into which the individuals of a class entered, and which was determined by their common interests over against a third party, was always a community to which individuals belonged only as average individuals, only in so far as they lived within the conditions of existence of their class…” Ick! Did that help anyone? It certainly didn’t help me any.
It is my opinion that the works of Marx is deeply contextual and that contributes to the difficulty in explicating it. It was virtually impossible for me to take anything he said completely out of context and make any sense of it. One of the things imperative to keep in mind when reading Marx is he is speaking to us from another time, roughly 1846 not to put too fine a point on it, another country, and perhaps most importantly from the midst of an entirely different economic and political structure than the one we were born and raised in.
Keeping this in mind it is easier to see Marx’s use of the word “communal” as found on page 21 (eighth paragraph) as including but not limited to the collectively owned sharecropping rural community. It is here perhaps we can find it appropriate to include the definition supplied to us by the American Heritage dictionary’s definition of commune as it offers us; the smallest local political division of various European countries.
We must do our best to stretch our minds to the context of mid nineteenth century Prussia.
I know this would have been of much more use for Monday’s assignment but for what it’s worth, as long as we’re talking context I found www.philosophypages.com/ph/marx.htm to be helpful when looking into the socio-economical structure of the time and Marx’s background.

'The German Ideology' contd.

What does it mean to say that "culture is materially produced"? As opposed to what?

Although my interpretation and response to this question may not be what Karl Marx was thinking during his time, here's my best shot.
By disecting this question, I can say that something that is materially produced means an object that is tangible and was made by combining several components together, either by man or by a machine. For example, a cake is materially produced by a baker, by combining ingredients such as flour, sugar, eggs, etc., just as a computer is materially produced by a machine combining parts such as the hardrive, the ram, the motherboard, etc.
Websters Dictionary defines culture simply as: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. In reference to the question, one might wonder how can such a thing as "culture be materially produced", if it is not tangible, nor created by man or a machine. In my opinion, culture is something that naturally exists in every society. To give a simple example, when the U.S. was bombarded by thousands and thousands of immigrants in the 1920's, each family brought along with them their own culture. The Italians continued speaking Italian and practicing Catholicism, just as the Germans continued speaking German and practicing their Protestant religion. From this, the American culture was born, which I would describe as extremely varied, because as I said, we've got Italians and their culture combined with Germans and theirs, etc.
What Marx might have intended by saying that "culture is materially produced" is that in a communist society, since no one has their own entity and everyone is equal socially and economically, they must create their own culture, because it simply does not exist.

Class 9/17

This post has been edited, please reread:

I heard some signs of engagement today, if not a great deal of certainty. We'll keep working at it. Now that I've received most of your 'translations' of one of Marx's paragraphs (send me yours immediately if you haven't) along with your questions and problematic terms, I've put it all (along with some questions and terms of my own) together into something you'll find on the links list that we can use as a reference guide. Read it over, consider one of the questions and then, predictably, try to answer that question in 250 to 400 words. Also bring the class translation to class.

In addition, read the Introduction to the Marxism section in Modern Literary Theory, and Raymond Williams' 'Marxism and Literature' in the same. The Williams is not short, though easier going than the Marx one hopes.

Lastly, for anyone who missed class today, feel free to make up for it by 'translating' one of the last five paragraphs of 'The German Ideology' into everyday language and emailing it to me along with a question about the Marx you think the class needs to deal with. Let me know which paragraph you want to do before you do it to ensure no overlap.

Post Four- Marx

"The definite condition under which they produce, thus corresponds, as long as the contradiction has not yet appeared, to the reality of their conditioned nature, their one-sided existence, the one-sidedness of which only becomes evident when the contradiction enters on the scene and thus only exists for the later individuals."

This sentence all together was confusing to me, as was the text in general.

Response #4

The conditions under which individuals have intercourse with each other are conditions appertaining to their individuality, in no way external to them; conditions under which these definite individuals, living under definite relationships, can alone produce their material life and what is connected with it; are thus the conditions of their self-activity and are produced by this self-activity.

I read the entire text three times and I still can't grasp the slightest idea of this one. I honestly have no clue, about not only this sentence but the entire essay. I looked around to see if I can comment on someone else's, but God, I can't even help myself!

The German Ideology?

The passage that I found particularly difficult to comprehend is in the middle of page 19. “The relation of the productive forces to the form of intercourse is the relation of the form of intercourse to the occupation or activity of the individuals. (The Fundamental form of this activity is, of course, material, from which depend all other forms-mental, political, religious, etc. The various shaping, of material is, of course, in every case dependent on needs which are already developed, and both the production and the satisfaction of these needs is an historical process, which is not found in the case of a sheep or a dog [perversity of Stirner’s principal argument adversus hominen], although sheep and dogs in their present form certainly, but malgré eux, are products of an historical process.)

I probably had difficulties comprehending this text because I was unable to fully interpret the passages before this one and I didn’t find a very good definition of a few words and concepts.

"The transformation, through the division of labour, of personal powers (relationships) into material powers, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from one's mind, but only by the action of individuals in again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labour. This is not possible without the community. Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible."

I had Trouble understanding this paragraph because I dont understand what or how one needs to change his life or relationship, in order to 'transform' into something or someone better, and achieve freedom with the help of the community.



www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm - 15k

Response 4 (Marx and Engels)

"It follows from all we have been saying up till now that the communal relationship into which the individuals of a class entered, and which was determined by their common interest over against a third party, was always a community to which these individuals belonged only as average individuals, only in so far as they lived within the conditions of existence of their class-a relationship in which they participated not as individuals but as members of a class. "

Does this mean one must sacrifice individuality to act as a member of a class?

Q and A

What I choose to answer, is the question stating if there was a modern occurrence of what Marx is saying in paragraph 5. This is important to me because if there are events that are similar to what Marx is saying, then obviously there holds some truth in his writings and we wouldn’t be reading Marx in class if he was not right about anything. Although Marx seems to be hard to read and harder to understand, I think I really understand what he is trying to say (at least I hope so). In paragraph 5 he still uses the word intercourse and all some more other difficult words, but I have learned that in this section of his writing you can interoperate intercourse as an "idea". It is critical to understand this if anyone wishes to analyze Marx and compare what he is writing to modern day events and that is exactly what I did. In paragraph 5 Marx talks about a North America as a country and how it broke off from the British. He also talked about other countries that take countries over and instill an idea and enforce this idea to the conquered country. He gives examples of when in history these occurrences have happened, but I want to know if any of what Marx is saying can be applied to today’s world. I believe it’s quite easy to see where this is apparent. Look at the war in Iraq. This is a fine example of how what Marx says in the 5th paragraph. The first part of his paragraph says that this new country only settled there because it had different views or goals than the old country. This is hard but I think we can say that America had settled in Iraq because they had different views than Iraq, mainly about terrorism and the government. This also means that because Americans took over Iraq to make it democratic the level of democracy should be more advanced in Iraq or at least the Americans in Marx opinion had many years to develop democracy and perfect it, so the people who worked on democracy in Iraq should be the most advanced. The second part of the paragraph says about a country conquering another and bringing over its ideas. Once again I’m going to continue with the view that this country is America and Iraq has been conquered. Although America is, at one point in time, going to leave the Iraq government develop on its own, we do not leave until the since of democracy is in its purist form. We do not leave until we know the idea we brought over does not change. Although Americans have their own traditions at home they do not look to have these traditions in Iraq. What I mean by this is that our very own soldiers in America, while in America may goof around or not be as serious about what they do. Taking a look in Iraq, the news says that the American soldiers will not stand for any goofing around by the Iraqi soldiers. They find them sleeping on the job and playing games instead of doing their job. And according to Marx in order for the Iraq democracy to be with out a loss of power you can not allow the Iraqi soldiers to do so, or else there is a chance the terrorists will take over again.

Q&A

What I choose to answer, is the question stating if there was a modern occurrence of what Marx is saying in paragraph 5. This is important to me because if there are events that are similar to what Marx is saying, then obviously there holds some truth in his writings and we wouldn’t be reading Marx in class if he was not right about anything. Although Marx seems to be hard to read and harder to understand, I think I really understand what he is trying to say (at least I hope so). In paragraph 5 he still uses the word intercourse and all some more other difficult words, but I have learned that in this section of his writing you can interoperate intercourse as an "idea". It is critical to understand this if anyone wishes to analyze Marx and compare what he is writing to modern day events and that is exactly what I did. In paragraph 5 Marx talks about a North America as a country and how it broke off from the British. He also talked about other countries that take countries over and instill an idea and enforce this idea to the conquered country. He gives examples of when in history these occurrences have happened, but I want to know if any of what Marx is saying can be applied to today’s world. I believe it’s quite easy to see where this is apparent. Look at the war in Iraq. This is a fine example of how what Marx says in the 5th paragraph. The first part of his paragraph says that this new country only settled there because it had different views or goals than the old country. This is hard but I think we can say that America had settled in Iraq because they had different views than Iraq, mainly about terrorism and the government. This also means that because Americans took over Iraq to make it democratic the level of democracy should be more advanced in Iraq or at least the Americans in Marx opinion had many years to develop democracy and perfect it, so the people who worked on democracy in Iraq should be the most advanced. The second part of the paragraph says about a country conquering another and bringing over its ideas. Once again I’m going to continue with the view that this country is America and Iraq has been conquered. Although America is, at one point in time, going to leave the Iraq government develop on its own, we do not leave until the since of democracy is in its purist form. We do not leave until we know the idea we brought over does not change. Although Americans have their own traditions at home they do not look to have these traditions in Iraq. What I mean by this is that our very own soldiers in America, while in America may goof around or not be as serious about what they do. Taking a look in Iraq, the news says that the American soldiers will not stand for any goofing around by the Iraqi soldiers. They find them sleeping on the job and playing games instead of doing their job. And according to Marx in order for the Iraq democracy to be with out a loss of power you can not allow the Iraqi soldiers to do so, or else there is a chance the terrorists will take over again.

Post 4 (marx and engels)

"The conditions under which individuals have intercourse with each other, so long as the above-mentioned contradiction is absent, are conditions appertaining to their individuality, in no way external to them; conditions under which these definite individuals, living under definite relationships, can alone produce their material life and what is connected with it; are thus the conditions of their self-activity and are produced by this self-activity." [p.19]

I cant seem to interpret the connection between a individuals relationship and the conditions of that relationship, having to alone produce material life in the absence of external events that would make every relationship not "definite (in my opinion).

for monday the 17th

"The contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse, which, as we saw, has occurred several times in past history without, however, endangering its basis, necessarily on each occasion burst out in a revolution, taking on at the same time various subsidiary forms, such as all-embracing collisions, collisions of various classes, contradiction of consciousness, battle of ideas, etc., political conflict, etc."

I too had massive problems with comprehending this text, this is just one selection of many that confused and befuddled me.

response 4

"Since this evolution takes place naturally, i.e. is not subordinated to a general plan of freely combined individuals, it proceeds from various localities, tribes, nations, branches of labour, etc., each of which to start with develops independently of the others and only very slowly; the various stages and interests are never completely overcome, but only subordinated to the interest of the victor, and trail along beside the latter for centuries afterwards. It follows from this that within a nation itself the individuals, even apart from their pecuniary circumstances, have quite different developments, and that an earlier interest, the peculiar form of intercourse of which has already been ousted by that belonging to a later interest, remains for a long time afterwards in possession of a traditional power in the illusory community (State, law), which has won an existence independent of the individuals; a power which in the last resort can only be broken by a reveolution. This explains why, with reference to individual points which allow of a more general summing-up, consciousness can sometimes appear further advanced than contemporary empirical relationships, so that in the struggles of a later epoch one can refer to earlier theoriticians as authorities."

In truth, the whole text was hard for me to understand. I don't know if it was Marx' and Engels' concept I couldn't grasp or the points they brought up. But, whatever it was, I just wasn't getting it. This paragraph is where I had the most problems. It doesn't matter how many times I've read it and tried to break it down, I can't make any sense out of it.

Post for 9/17

"These various conditions, which appear first as conditions of self-activity, later as fetters upon it, form in the whole evolution of history a coherent series of forms of intercourse, the coherence of which consists in this: thats in the place of an earlier form of intercourse, which has become a fetter, a new on is put, corresponding, to the more developed productive forces and, hence, to the advanced mode of the self-activity of individuals - a form which in its turn becomes a fetter and is then replaced by another."

I don't understand how an interchange of ideas has anything to do with being chained or bogged down.  

Also, the guy who translated this work could of picked a better word than intercourse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx  
 

Post for 9/17

"The definite condition under which they produce, thus corresponds, as long as the contradiction has not yet appeared, to the reality of their conditioned nature, their one-sided existence, the one-sidedness of which only becomes evident when the contradiction enters on the scene and thus only exists for the later individuals. This condition appears as accidental fetter, and the consciousness that it is a fetter is imputed to the earlier age as well."

This confused me but what I got from it was it when something changes from a conditioned nature, that change is what will exist for later individuals to contradict.

Response #4 The Idealogy of Marxism

"The tranformation, through the division of labour, of personal powers (relationships) into material powers, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from one's mind, but
only by the action of individuals in again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labour."

I was confused about what material powers meant but I think what is being said here is that in order to create an economically prosperous, united community, the people must give up their personal relationships and only be concerned with working for the greater prosperity of the State, in which they will be unified.


This site that I went to really helped explain the ideas of Marx and Engel and explained many terms that I hadn't heard of in a number of years, so it was a great site to refresh my memory!
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/marxism.htm

'The German Ideology'

"Of the elements handed down to a later age from an earlier, what appears accidental to the later age as opposed to the earlier, is a form of intercourse which corresponded to a less developed stage of the productive forces. The relation of the productive forces to the form of intercourse is the relation of the form of intercourse to the occupation or activities of the individuals."

These two sentences are a little repetitive and confusing, but my main confusion lies in Marx's reference to 'productive forces'.

Response #4

"The conditions under which individuals have intercourse with each other, so long as the above-mentioned contradiction is absent, are conditions appertaining to their individuality, in no way external to them; conditions under which these defenite individuals, living under defenite relationships, can it alone produce thier material life and what is connected with it; are thus the conditions of their self activity and are produced by this self-activity."

What are these conditions Marx and Engels refers to that can produce their material life?

Response Four

"The illusory community, in which individuals have up till now combined, always took on an independent existence in relation to them, and was at the same time, since it was the combination of one class over against another, not only a completely illusory community, but a new fetter as well. In the real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association."

What difference do "illusory communities" (where it's one class over another) and "real communities" (where the individuals gain their freedom through association), in terms of classes actually have, as it seems as if they are both virtually the same in this right?

post #4

"Individuals have always built on themselves, but naturally on themselves within their given historical conditions and relationships, not the 'pure' individual in the sense of the ideologists. But in the course of historical evolution, and precisely though the inevitable fact that within the division of labor social relationships take on an independent existence, there appears a division within the life of each individual, in so far as it is determined by some branch of labour and the condition of pertaining to it."

I think what he is trying to say is that we are all individuals, but that our individuality is built upon our "branch of labour". Basically your economic class will determine your individuality whether your the rich controlling poor (media), or whether your the proletarian being controlled by the bourgeois; your branch of labour will determine part of your individuality depending on your social class and what you choose to follow.

" The transformation,through the division of labour,of personal powers(relationships)into material powers,cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from the one's mind, but only bu the action of individual in the again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labour"

What Marx is trying to say,in my opinion, is changing personal power into material power can not be achieved by dismissing it from your psyche, there has to acion,an uprising, for change to occur.

“This is not possible without the community. Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, ect., personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only so far as they were individuals of this class.”

How is personal freedom possible “only” in a community? Isn’t this statement contradictory?

Thoughts on the German Ideology

"The difference between the individual as a person and what is accidental to him, is not a conceptual difference but an historical fact. This distinction has a different significance at different times — e.g. the estate as something accidental to the individual in the eighteenth century, the family more or less too. It is not a distinction that we have to make for each age, but one which each age makes itself from among the different elements which it finds in existence, and indeed not according to any theory, but compelled by material collisions in life."

How are people accidentally different when its obvious everyone is both physically and ethnically not the same?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm