Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Marxism and Material Possessions

Marxism seems to be all about material possession; the more you own, the better off you are and the less you own, the less important you really are. Social class is a big part of Marxism, and usually the higher class has more material possession than the working class.
" Freire's analysis of the social situation is based on the ideas of dialectical materialism; an
oppressor class oppresses and an oppressed class is oppressed. "

Wiley's theory explores the wall that divides up social classes. He goes into detail about the history of social problems and the revolutionary movements that followed with that.
"However, the moment the new regime hardens into a dominating 'bureaucracy' the humanist dimension of the struggle is lost and it is no longer possible to speak of liberation". He acknowledges that the revolutionary leadership may disregard the peasants and simply tell them about the revolution rather than educate them so that they participate in it as reflecting/acting human beings." 

  This picture that I drew represents Marxism. I was lucky enough to get some art supplies to make the pictures more vivid and detailed. Since Marxism is all about having material possession and spreading the message that the more you have the better you are and the more important you are. The picture shows two people. The woman on the left is clearly a higher class woman. She is in possession of a really fancy sports car, probably a Ferrari ( its been so long since I've drawn a car that I forgot how to do it and the result looks like a lady bug). She is wearing fine jewelry and carrying a lot of shopping bags, implying that she has a lot of possessions and can easily get what she wants. She also has a dog and is wearing fancy clothes. The bottom line is that she clearly is a member of the upper class and has a lot of possessions which means that she would be considered important from a Marxist perspective. She probably comes from a good family and a good social transformation. The figure on the left is simply a stick figure. I chose to do this because it shows such a blank expression with no material possessions what so ever. This person would probably belong in the lower social class so a Marxist perspective would frown upon this person.

A question that I raised from this article and Marxism in general is " where do we see Marxism in the future? do we see it at all in the future? if so, would that be a bad thing? What can we take from Marxism and how can we use it beneficially?"

1 comment:

  1. Ok, I am a little worried! The definition of Marxism at the outset sounds more like what Eagleton called "vulgar Marxism"-- that is, an oversimplified definition based simply on the distribution of wealth, but not on the kind of structures (base/superstructure: Marx; Ideology/ideologies, RSA's/ISA's: Althusser; dialogic/monologic, probem-posing/banking-Freire) that our theorists actually looked at. Your quotes are a bit disconnected from your prose, too. It looks like you may need to spend more time on the reading so you can catch the nuances here. Come see me anytime if you want to talk about the texts! This reveals some problems, so make sure you follow up before you move on to Feminism!