Marxist [literary] theory, at least at the time of writing this although this is certain to be reevaluated by tomorrow morning, is the idea that the societies and people depicted in novels are representations of social classes and together with symbols and themes point to a machine which all members of the society are responsible for keeping active, and thus are all equal. BUT WAIT, let's throw Justin Wyllie's Encyclopedia de la verbose into that definition. Wyllie says that Marxism is basically about "keeping the proletariat submerged in a false consciousness," (7). Wyllie seems bitter about Marx's optimism. I don't think there is a "false consciousness" with Marx, just as I don't think pretending I'm doing well in this class is that unhealthy (it's like carbs in a way).
One thing Wyllie does well in his review is agree with Freire (even though he gives the credit to Eric Fromm...the smug is unreal). "They [the oppressor class] cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit of having as a possessing class, they suffocate in their own possessions and no longer are; they merely have," (4) he quotes. AND THEN he has the nerve to say "we would only partially accept this." Freire is highlighting the "distinction between 'being' and 'having' as two contrasting approaches to the problem of living," (4). The problem of living is the essential idea behind the common struggle Marx points out, though he doesn't necessarily preach to the oppressors to change before they die trying to live. While the oppressor (a.k.a. le bourgeoisie) struggles with what they have (possessions, power, pride over possessing power) the oppressed (a.k.a. le proletariat) struggle with living ("being") under the ruling authority of the oppressor. The conclusion drawn (literally, below) is that the oppressed do not necessarily have to usurp the oppressive, they just have to wait it out until the oppressive "suffocate in their own possessions."
The artistic skills strike again...Okay reviewing I think this looks more like a money suit than a man drowning in his possessions, and when Wyllie says "Conquest operates on a scale from repressive measures to 'the most solicitous (paternalism)'. The conqueror makes of people his possession," (12) it make me think that instead of money it should really be people, specifically the proletariat type. What I wanted to express was the inevitable demise of the bourgeoisie through their own pursuits...but still, I imagine a money-suit isn't very comfortable.
So first question:
Does Justin Wyllie hate innocent college students?
What's with the title? How are the oppressed pedagogical? (If by asking this question I'm exposing myself as a very inattentive reader, I never asked...and I'll deny it to the media).
Dialectical materialism?? Like...the logical argument of owning stuff? (Capitalism?)
And why are Capitalists schizophrenic? "The signal disease of late industrial capitalism is schizophrenia."
What happened to Wordsworth's "write for the common man"? I'M TALKING TO YOU WYLLIE!