An uncertain future

Unlike most girls in their late twenties Lily Bart remains unmarried. Miss Bart is struggling with this truth. Her struggle reaches the extent that "she was beginning to have fits of angry rebellion against fate" (Wharton 39). She is considering dropping out of the "race" and seeking an "independent" life. Although she, herself, is unsure the life of materialism is what she wants, her monetary situation has an impact on her future. Presently, she barely has enough money to live contentedly in obscurity. Thanks to her mother's repugnance of dinginess, she like her mother does not want it to be a part of her life. It is interesting that she calls success a "slippery surface to her clutch". This represents that success is not easily attained, it is a significant goal, unachievable simply on a whim. Although Lily seems to desire a luxurious life, her views are questioned as she converses with Selden.

Determing the value of labor power

Although the value of labour-power is easily determined for commodity goods by looking at the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this specific article, there are several supports that have to be present in order for labour-power to properly exist. First, "Labour-power" exists only as a capacity of the living individual" (268). Second, "given the existence of the individual, the production of labour-power consists in his reproduction of himself or his maintanance" (268). In order to maintain himself, the laborer must have some means of subsistance. All of these conditions create a full circle effect that explains why the labour-time necessary for the production of labour-power is the same as that necessary for the production of thoses means of subsistence; in other words, the value of labour-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the owner.

What I Disagree With in Marx

The majority of the things that I disagree with concerning Marx come from the first section, pages 58 through 64. First I disagree with Marx in that fact that labor is external to the laborer. This means, "it is not part of his nature, and that the worker does not affirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and unhappy, develops no free physical and mental energy but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind"(62). I do not believe this to be the case. Both my mother and my father love their jobs. They like to have fun apart from their jobs, but their jobs to a certain extent define who they are, at least to people at large in the community. They do not feel miserable every day, although some days are more stressful than others, and they use their job as a creative outlet as opposed to a creative barrier. I also to not agree with Marx concerning the alienation of a worker. I do not believe, "the more the worker produces, the less he had to consume", or "the more civilzed his product, the more barbaric is the worker". This is certainly not true of modern society and economy. Today, in a capitalistic society, the more one is able to produce, the more one is able to consume. Also, the complex technology that is made today, may be put together by ignorant hands, but pure genious is the only reason these new products exist on the store shelves in the first place. It is the most intelligent who adapt and adjust for the better.

Making sense of the text

Before I attempt to say something intellectual, it is best that I am aware of the complex terms present in this text. Like Nietzsche, at some points, Marx needs to be deciphered. On p.242, Marx explains the concept of exchange value as "a definite social manner of expressing the labour bestowed on a thing, it can have no more natural content than has, for example, the rate of exchange". Apart from this explanation, Marx explains the whole concept of formulas that "bear the unmistakable stamp of belonging to a social formation. Marx tells the reader, "labour" is expressed in "value" (240), and "the measurement of labour by its duration" is expressed in "the magnitude of the value of the product" (240). Although I am currently enrolled in Macroeconomics it is still difficult for me to understand the theories of economics that exist in the mind of Marx. Because of the confusion, it is helpful when on p.243, Marx defines "value" and "riches". These paragraphs try to help the reader understand Marx's thoughts through modern economic priciples.

Social vs. Individual Labour

Throughout the reading, I was overwhemed with all the new definition being thrown my way. When I saw that Marx was about to bring Robinson Crusoe into the picture, I was very excited. When Robinson is mentioned, Marx describes the labour Robinson did to survive alone on a deserted island. Marx writes, "He still has needs to satisfy, and must therefore perform useful labours of various kinds: he must make tools, knock together furniture, tame llamas, fish, hunt, and so on...personal dependence characterizes the social relations of material production as much as it does the other spheres of like based on that production...all Robinson's products were exclusively the result of his own personal labour and they were therefore directly objects of utility for him personally" (238). Crusoe's labour was personal, as he worked in order to survive. This personal labour is the direct opposite of the labour that the masses do to survive and achieve a surplus. Labour done by the masses is considered social labour because the masses produre commodities not necessities. This difference between commodity and necessity appears to the reader to be a subtle difference, but to Marx, these two different types of labour are very distinct.

Politics in Education

Just home-schooling today lacks legitimacy, the same problem was present in Marx's time. Referring to the idea of homeschooling, Marx writes,"the bourgeoisie clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more distinguishing , the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor" (173). Adding legitimacy to Marx's claim, not only does he denounce the current education system, but he goes as far to explain a better method of education that is currently being employed by the communists. He writes, "the communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the absence of the ruling class." Marx is a firm defendant of social education over home education.

Goal Sharing

Like the liberals and conservation fanatics, the proletarians and the communists share the same goal to some extent. On p.169, Marx writes, "the immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, over-throw of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat". The communist and proletariat goal can be distinguished. Marx writes, "the communists are distinguished by this only. 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2.In the various stages of which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole" (169). Keeping these distinguishing factors in mind, it seems appropriate to conclude that the "Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country...on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." (169)

Communist vs. Bourgeois Societies

The goals in communistic and bourgeois societies are polar opposites. According to Marx, "in bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labor" (171). Communistic society is totally opposite. Concerning communistic society, Marx writes, "in communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer" (171). These two societies differ on their views of time and productivity. In bourgeois society, the past dominated the present, as opposed to communist society where the present dominates the past. There is definitely more optimism in the communist party. Although communists cannot horde their riches, like many capitalists, there are numerous members of the bourgeois society who are extremely materialistic, even though "private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population.

Ghandi as a sage

As if there was a question of the selflessness of Ghandi's actions, all doubt is erased as I viewed Ghandi's advice as to how to make decisions when one is in doubt. Like something my mother, or grandmother would have told me, Ghandi writes, "whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him" (91). This statement reminded me of the numerous sermons I have heard out of the pulpit, as well as the advice I have recieved from my mom in the past. The statement tells one to be selfless. Selflessness, more so than manners, or any type of etiquette was engrained in me by my highschool football coach. Everyday, Coach Homer preached selflessness. When I made a sack, he would often be angry because in order to make a sack I would evade an offensive lineman who would go block one of the linebackers. Maybe I would have held his criticism with more salt if I knew the origin of his thoughts were from Gandhi.

Social Norms

From the section "Some rules of Satyagraha", I gleaned the theme of social expectations, or social definitions. Gandhi classifies how individuals, prisoners, and units shall act. He defines that individuals "will harbor no anger", "never retaliate", and "he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property" (158). Concerning the behavioral expectations of a prisoner, a prisioner will "behave courtesly towards prision officials", "not ask for such conveniences as may be required for his physical or spiritual well-being", and "will not fast for want of conveniences whose deprivation does not involve any injury to one's self-interest" (159). Gandi even goes as far as to define the social expectations of units. About units, he writes, as a unit "he shall carry out order in the first instance even though they appear to him insulting", and "will joyfully obey all the orders issued by the leader of the corps, whether they please him or not" (159). The legacy of Gandhi's social expectations can still be seen today, as different people,(of different religions, races, etc.) are supposed to act differently. Like today, as in gandhi's time, stereotypying is present.

The Definition of Ahimsa

While reading the "Creed of non-violence", I came across the idea of Ahimsa. Ahimsa is obviously not an english word, so I was interested to find its true meaning. On the quest to find its true meaning, I found that it had several meanings depending on what angle you look at it. In its "negative" form, "it means not injuring any living being, whether by body or mind" (95). In its positive form, it has a similiar meaning, but there are subtle differences. "In its positive form, ahimsa means the largest love, the greatest...one must love his enemy" (96). From both the positive and negative perspectives, Ahimsa means doing good, but in the positive form, one is expected to be more pro-active in promoting the good. In the positive form, one is expected to go above and beyond the call of duty.