Discussing Bresslers definition of Marxism as a literary theory :: essays papers

Discussing Bresslers interpretation of Marxism as a literary theory Marxism is non the hot topic it once was. With the collapse of Communist U.S.S.R., mainstream North the States had thought it had seen the last of Marxism and the communist party. However, with the Peoples Republic of China becoming a reality, those early beliefs may have proven to be premature.Defining Marxism is not catchy. Marxism is the belief that the common workingman (the proletariat) is under a rule of tyranny by the upper class owners (the materialistic.) Someday (according to Marx) the proletariats will rise up, overthrow the bourgeois and create a society of communism. Communism is the policy-making idea in where a society would be controlled mostly by the government. Personal office would not be allowed and therefore eliminate the bourgeois a utopian society in which every man works for the common good.Marxists rely that (based on the works of Karl H. Marx) everything we do or think is infl uenced by the bourgeois. This is simple. Marxism becomes difficult when defining it as a literary theory. The original intentions of Marx were those of mixer and political revolution. Many of Marxs followers however, were and are scholars. Therefore the transition from a brotherly economic theory to a school of literary criticism was inevitable. Charles Bressler is face with this seeming difficult task of defining Marxism as a literary school of thought.Bressler attempts to define and explain Marxism as a school of literary thought by examining past Marxists, the assumptions which one must adopt and the methodology (as he does with every chapter.) He succeeds in some places and fails in others. Bresslers definition of Marxism is as follows, the belief that reality itself can be can be defined and understood, society shapes our consciousness, social and economic conditions directly influence how and what we believe and value, and Marxism expatiate a plan for changing the worl d from a place of bigotry, execration and conflict due to class struggle to a classless society where wealth, opportunity, and education are accessible for all people. Bressler does a right job here. He defines Marxism as it was originally intended an economic and social view of culture and its influences. He provides a clear, simple definition of Marxism which is tardily understandable.After this however, Bresslers chapter begins to fall apart. He succeeds in giving a design description of Marxist events and theorists, but fails in his assumptions and methodology.