Marxism In Hamlet

Marxist literary criticism as defined by Peter Barry approaches a literary text through terms introduced in Karl Marx’ and Friedrich Engels’ Communist economic theory. Their jointly written text titled The Communist Manifesto called for a society with “state ownership on industry… rather than private ownership”. The social theory later became known as Marxism. As stated in Barry’s text, “The aim of Marxism is to bring about a classless society, based on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” (156). One of the theory’s main aspects looks to the “exploitation of one social class by another. The result leaves one class alienated.” Central to Marxism is a belief in its ability to change the material world, which it theorizes. According to Marxist theorists, only through conflicts between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, can the status quo positively change (157).

Throughout the entirety of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, if one looks carefully, one can see many aspects of Marxist thought prevalent in the story. To effectively analyze a story through a Marxist critical lens, the reader needs to pay close attention to how characters of different classes interact with one another, especially in respect to class oppression and social inequity, particularly if the actions or words of a character talk of rebellion against the upper classes. “To Marxist critics, a society's economic base determines the interests and styles of its literature; it is this relationship between determining base and determined superstructure that is the main

Marxism is a critical perspective based off of the ideas of Karl Marx, with Marx’s most famous work being the Communist Manifesto. This book illustrates

Class struggle is noticeable in Hamlet. The royals exploit the lower class to satisfy their ambitions. People from the working class carry out the Aristocrats commands and they hold an insignificant rank in their society. The Aristocrats notably Hamlet, Claudius, and even Gertrude oppress others to obtain what they want and show that they are superior. Claudius poisons his own brother and marries Gertrude to have a stronger chance at being king since she is “the imperial jointress,” to the throne; he does not marry Gertrude because he loves her; he is using her to obtain the power (I.ii.9). Even when he gets the throne, he still wants more power and seeks to murder Hamlet because the prince knows his secret. Claudius also uses Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to spy on his nephew. The men carry out his orders without protest; they are “like an ape, in the corner of/ [Claudius’] jaw;” the king is using them to find out the reason for Hamlet’s sudden madness and when he will get what he wants; he will get rid them (IV.ii.18-19). Claudius uses Laertes to get rid of Hamlet because he wants his nephew to remain inferior to him because the people of Denmark love Hamlet and they will want him as their ruler; Hamlet is a menace to Claudius and an obstruction between him and the ultimate power.

Hamlet can be viewed through a feminist lens by focusing on Ophelia and Gertrude and how various other male characters treat them. Ophelia and Gertrude are dismissed as characters through the entire play because they are women. Hamlet refers to women as “frailty,” implying that they are weak and are dependent on men. Reason suggests that with out the males, Ophelia and Gertrude would simply have no story.

A Marxist lens is strong lens to analyze Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness. Marxism is the belief that there is a conflict between the ruling class and working class, the crux of this conflict is the working struggle for economic power while the ruling class believes in the profit of capitalism but the power of Marxism. Throughout the Heart of Darkness Marxism influences all aspect of society, laws, economic base, and exploitation.

For the Marxist critic, literature is in of itself a social institution, with a particular ideological function based on the experience and beliefs of the author, and a material product to be comprehended in broadly historical terms, emphasizing class and ideology as they are illustrated, distribute, and contest the social order of the period in which it was written. Terry Eagleton, in his book Marxism and Literary Criticism, describes Marxist application to literature

The working definition of Marxism is a theory that analyzes the relationships of classes and the social conflicts that are within the classes. Marxism claims that this conflict is between the rich and the poor. This theory entails thoughts of socioeconomic differences and focuses the systematic view of the economy. The theory of Marxism is very prevalent in the novel, “The Other Wes Moore.” “The Other Wes Moore”, and a short story titled, “The Lottery” are great example of the differences within social classes.

In act II, scene 2, there is a notable difference between working class and royalty. King Claudius and Queen Gertrude tell officers Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to spy on Prince Hamlet to find out what hurts him; to what they answer: “But we both obey, / And here give up ourselves in the full bent / to lay our service freely at your feet, / to be commanded.” (1375) Another difference between classes exists in act III scene 3. King Claudius tells Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to take Hamlet to England. Both courtiers assures they will do the job. In both examples, it is easy to recognize that Guildenstern and Rosencrantz belong to the working class. King Claudius do not ask them to do something, he tells them what to do without asking if they could it; and both courtiers admit that is their

Karl Marx believed that every society had different economic classes, that the people are divided into, depending on their economic status; the individuals with the most economic power are usually the ones in control. This hierarchy leads to the creation of the religious ideology which in turn arises false consciousness. Those who control the power in any society are known as the bourgeoisie, and they obtain that social hierarchy by oppressing the lower-class individuals, who, in the Marxist Lens, are known as the proletariats. The two texts being compared are, the novel 1984 by George Orwell and the play, by George Bernard Shaw, known as Pygmalion.

In his article "'Funeral Bak'd Meats:'  Carnival and the Carnivalesque in Hamlet," Michael D. Bristol mingles Marxism and Bakhtin's notion of double discoursed textuality into an unique reading of Shakespeare's drama as a struggle between opposing economic classes.  Bristol opens with a two paragraph preface on Marxism, highlighting Marx's own abnegation of Marxism:  "Marx is famous for the paradoxical claim that he was not a Marxist" (Bristol 348).  While he acknowledges some of the flaws inherent in Marxist criticism, Bristol uses the introductory paragraphs to assert the "enormous importance" of "the theory of class consciousness and class struggle" which Marxist theory includes (349).  Having prepared readers

Vladimir Lenin, a communist revolutionary displays the Marxist ideology by believing that “any cook should be able to run the country.” This quote reflects the view of evenly distributed power. According to the Marxist theory, it is best to eliminate social classes, for they spark class conflict and promote inequality between the upper class bourgeois and the lower class proletariats. The Marxist Lens mainly looks at economic power when providing arguments about the inconsistent treatment of people based on their social status. In Hamlet, Shakespeare demonstrates class differences by establishing characters that abuse their power and take advantage of others to get ahead, subtlety criticizing the bourgeoisie, and using what is occurring in society at the time to base the society within the play.

It is easy to view the characters in Hamlet as being completely helpless to the external forces that control their lives. This idea is pointed out by Michael Shelden in his article, “The Imagery of Constraint in Hamlet,” which uses Maurice Charney’s book to further assert that all characters do not have control over their destiny, supported with the use of traps in the play. However, both Charney and Shelden fail to represent that power structure plays a large role in destiny and they push all characters into the same powerless category. Shelden neglects to recognize Claudius has more freedom compared to any of the other characters because of his power. Within the play, Claudius is able to reach his ultimate goals before the play even begins by marrying the queen and obtaining the position as king. He continues to prove his freedom as the controller of the traps in the play and has the power to control the characters’ freedom with the use of these traps. Even as Hamlet attempts to trap him, Claudius is able to escape both times, showing the control he has over his freedom. When focusing on the power structure of the characters, Shelden’s assertion fails to recognize that although the characters in Hamlet are controlled, Claudius is the only character that has power over his freedom and that of other characters.

While examining Hamlet through the Marxist Lens, one could see King Claudius as the powerful and abusing bourgeoisie and Hamlet as the proletariat trying to overthrow him. Claudius is the best representative of the wealthy and

Finally, the death behind Old Hamlet had a great Marxist view in detailed in it. Old Hamlet was murdered for one reason, so that Claudius could gain power in the kingdom. Since Claudius was the new king, he was able to deceive everyone in the town to believe Old Hamlet was killed by a snake. The ghost of Old Hamlet told his son, “Thus was I, sleeping, by a brother’s hand/ Of life, of crown, of queen at once dispatched” (Shakespeare 1.5.74-75).