Marxist believe the conventional families are the foundations of capitalism it does this in many way; Private property inheritance, Marxists believe that all functions of the family are performed purely for the benefit of the capitalist system. One of the key factors determining how our society plays in to the hands of capitalism is was who inherits Private property. Engles, Marx friend and supporter, argues that a monogamous nuclear family has become essential in society as men had to be certain of the parentage of their offspring to guarantee that their legitimate heir inherit from them. In Engels eyes this made for a ‘historical defeat for the female sex’ suggesting that woman were now under men’s control and just mere of object to provide offspring to become a heir to the inheritance. Marxist altercate that woman will never receive liberation from patriarchal control with the means of capitalism and private ownership nearby.
Through this we have learned that as working class, we expect and accept that we will be exploited by the ruling class in terms of our surplus value. This is known as a crisis of Hegemony. They go on to say that we have internalised the DVS to such an extent that any other value system seems absurd, resulting in a state of false class consciousness. Marx believed that we will see a social revolution which will overthrow capitalism and replace it with true communism. Marxism sees religion as a feature which is only relevant in a society based on class division I.E the ruling classes and the working classes.
However, Engels’ theory supports the question, as it shows that people would do anything to ensure their wealth and power went to their children after their death. Another Marxist theory is that of Althusser. His theory is based on the Ideological State Apparatus. This is the theory, that the family is a tool, a tool to transmit bourgeoisie-corrupted values, which helps to ensure the family creates an efficient workforce, one that willingly obeys to any form of authority. However, this is contradicted by the theory of Lasch and Donzelot, the idea of fragmentation.
Examine Marxist views of the role of the family (24 marks) Marxists believe that the nuclear family is dominant in capitalist society. Marxists say that the family serves capitalism in four ways. Firstly the family socialises their children, they reproduce labour power and have an acceptance of capitalism. Secondly women’s domestic work is unpaid which benefits capitalism. Thirdly the family acts as a comfort for the stresses and frustrations of working class men they are there to ‘Cushion the main provider’.
This setting by Salinger and Steers helps explore the concept and puts greater emphasis on the consumer society and the ‘American Dream’. As a time of tra ditionalism, affluence and materialism, society believed that their status, power and wealth was the key to true happiness. However Salinger uses Holden to help convey the corruption of this idea. Holden believes that all the people around him are ‘phoneys’ because they forfeit their morality to fit in with the conformities of society. While in Steers appropriation Igby rejects the ‘American Dream’ in which his godfather, D.H has achieved and Igby’s brother Oliver is corrupted by.
A criticism of Murdock’s theory is that other institutions can for fill some of the functions that the family performs for example the education system or the media. Marxist and feminist have also opposed his claims saying that functionalists don’t take conflict or exploitation into consideration. Feminists say that the family teach the needs of men and oppressing women so they believe that the functions the family perform all contribute to male dominance and ruling over women. Marxist says that this meets the needs of capitalism but not the family members or society all together. They suggest that the functions that the family perform all help capitalism for example the function of the next generation Marxist see it as reproducing the next generation of workers.
The World State, however, restricts viviparous births and brainwashes society into thinking that mothers are vile. The government in the novel controls every aspect of society through cloning individuals and conditioning them to accept the government’s ideals and their forced role in society. In the World State, the government controls the economy. The United States, however, holds a capitalistic economy. Although the government has some say in the American economy, it is different from that in the World State because primarily citizens and private companies control the U.S. economy.
He uses Arthur Birling as a voice for capitalism, who is ridiculed by the inspector, a representative of socialism. The dialogue between them shows this, as the inspector twists what birling says. For example, when the inspector says “I’m sorry but you asked me a question”, and Birling says the inspector previously asked him an unnecessary question, the Inspector replies “It’s my duty to ask questions”. Priestly uses this symbolism as framework for the political ideology battle each character has with the inspector. As the political Ida of capitalism has corrupted the Birling family, Priestly shows the audience how the inspector, the voice of socialism, constantly out-wits the birling’s.
Being knocked down a peg in society brings us back to wishing we could just accept or afford the little house with the picket fence. As soon as we are able to fulfill that dream again, if ever, we become greedy again. People crave for more and I believe it is only human to feel this way; this helps us to fit into society and feel as though we are living the American dream. For some people they struggle to live the American dream and tend look to the government for help. Feeling helpless due to the economy they become addicted to claiming help from other sources other than themselves because it just seems easier.
What you buy in our society determines your value and happiness is mistaken for satisfaction. At the end of the day, the United States does not come home fulfilled from the purchases they made or the things they have gained; it comes from the relationships you build and this is which creates genuine happiness. Both of these pieces shine a light on the growing industry and the ways they target children through television, media, and many other outlets who don’t know any better. This downward spiral is turning luxuries into necessities and the idea that money can’t buy happiness is being forgotten in our consumer