Marxism and the Vulgarization of Luxuries

Marxism, as it has evolved, has come to be defined roughly as the theory that what society does, it does to preserve its own sense of ideology. This I learned in Fundamental Literary Interpretation, where we read Louis Althusser's essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" as a basis for understanding a passage from Terry Eagleton's book Literary Theory: An Introduction, entitled "The Rise of English."

Althusser writes, in his essay, "All ideological State apparatuses, whatever they are, contribute to the same result: the reproduction of the relations of production, i.e. of capitalist relations of exploitation." Eagleton argues that English was introduced as an academic subject in schools (ideological state apparatuses) the Victorian period, when religion began to lose its widespread appeal. They did this because it seemed that literature could do many of the same things as religion in terms of stabilizing a "socially turbulent class-society." In other words, the ruling class made the decision to introduce the study of literature into public schools in order to keep the classes beneath them in line.

Certainly, we as a church understand that Marxism and Communism as a whole are Satanic counterfeits to sacred truths; furthermore, these theories, true as they may be, are made on the assumption that the reproduction of social ideology is a bad thing. In effect, Althusser and Eagleton may be perfectly right, as far as their facts go, even if what the spirit of what they say is mistaken.

In any case, the reading I did made me think about Marxism, and how the conditions under which we live may be designed quite simply to make us suitable for and satisfied with our social and economic position. Interestingly enough, I found some evidence to support this claim.

There are many things that were once luxuries only the rich enjoyed, which are now commonplace in the middle-class, if not the lower-income social strata. Take, for example, deodorant. Smelling nice was once the privilege of those who did not have to work, but now he who does not wear deodorant can say goodbye to being accepted into many social circles, the use is so widespread. Another example lies in the personal automobile. In the earlier part of the century, cars were most certainly a luxury for the rich. The common folk took the train. Now, what suburban family is there that doesn't use a car (or two or three)?

With these things and others like them, there are still upper-class versions (more expensive), but that is not the point. In some form or other, many upper-class luxuries are available to the middle and lower classes--not only available, but considered necessary. It has to do with them feeling satisfied with their economic position. No system is perfect, but this one seems to work pretty well. In theory, this is how it could have happened. The upper classes have some luxury. They see that there is some dissatisfaction among the classes beneath them. The upper classes own the means of production, so what do they do? They figure out a way to vulgarize their luxury and grant it to the lower classes. This keeps them happy until the next thing, when the cycle repeats itself. I'm no Marxist scholar--just a student who read a couple papers--but if Eagleton's analysis of education is true, perhaps a similar formula works in the way I have suggested.