Theories are aspects of human behaviors which are built upon evidences. For instance, in “Bressler’s Marxism Definition as a Literary Theory” ceased to be a once controversial topic following the Communist collapse. This ideology was then perceived as the last communist party in mainstream North America. The belief propagated by Marxism is that the proletariat is often under a tyranny rule controlled by the bourgeois. Marx believes that one-day proletariats will rise up to overthrow those considered bourgeois and establish a communism society. This is a political idea where the government, as personal property owner is not allowed to control a society; hence, abolishing the bourgeois. Bressler’s Marxism champions for a utopian society where every man enjoys the opportunity to work with the aim of a common good. Bressler tries to explain Marxism as being a major literary aspect through examining past Marxist and the assumptions adopted together with the inherent methodology. He succeeds at some point but the futility in his actions appears in other occasions like in the case of John and Mary in ‘happy endings’, where John married Mary after falling in love. For example, John and Mary both had worthwhile jobs that they found to be very challenging but eventually they afforded to leave, help one another as well as gave birth to two children.
Bressler’s Marxism definition involves the easily defined and understood beliefs. At the same time, the society tends to shape people consciousness, social, as well as to economic conditions that have a direct influence on our attitudes towards our valuables beliefs. Marxism’s plan is to change the world from being a place full of hatred and arguments because of class struggle. It proposes society that is classless with wealth, opportunity, together with education being accessible to everyone. The theory here is seen as something we think but we are not sure whether this is true or not. For example, in the story of Happy Endings, Mary thinks that John loves her but this is not true. John does not care about Mary’s feelings, but only cares about his own selfish desires and uses Mary to satisfy his desires. Conversely, in “Bressler’s Marxism Definition as a Literary Theory”, the intention noted by Bressler is that Marxism was intended to give a social as well as economic perspective and their impacts. He therefore avails a simple and succinct description of Marxism that is easily understandable. Nevertheless, He succeeds in providing a brief description in relation to Marxist events together with theorists, but seems to fail in methodology as well as assumptions. Bressler declares in his assumptions that Marxism is not mostly a literary theory, which can be used in text interpretation. The same is related to feminism and psychoanalysis, as Bressler mentions that a person does not require being a Marxist and having a Marxist position in terms of a text. He insists that a person has to be a Marxist to fully understand the ideology, and this occurs through continually restating that as long as there are different schools of thought regarding the subject, an individual cannot have one Marxist approach in relation to literary analysis.
Even though Marxism was originally planned to interpret literature, it currently misses this point. Bressler tends to makes Marxism look inferior in comparison to similar idealogies. This is because he concentrates on the financial aspects contrary to the literary. The point can be viewed as valid because Marxism remains an ideology based on economy. Although the statement seems valid, much attention should not be put in this area. Bressler summarizes The Communist Manifesto in an appropriate way, but fails in Marxism definition as literal school of thought. He says all Marxists emphasize that a text needs interpretation in relation to its culture. However, in his methodology, he states that, “the critic might choose to start textual analysis by history and culture examination in terms of the period.”
Bressler says that the Frankfurt school of thought closely links to the reflection theory as well as to Lukacs. However, the slight difference is the suggestion by Benjamin that the reader can defy the bourgeois concept entrenched in the text. This implies a rather flexible different mode of using Marxism, which Bressler mean, although it is a sub-approach. The mode of thinking includes all the fundamental Marxist beliefs. On the other hand, Bressler roughly succeeds in distinguish between Antonio Gramsci against Lukacs as he says that Gramsci interprets Marxism in a dissimilar concept. At the same time, he believes that the difference in the two concepts remains the connection between the bases with the superstructure. He insists that Gramsci notion is that the literature was a tool of the wealthy individuals, even though it was a common belief that was shared by every Marxists. Marxist literary opponents hold on to this belief in certain contexts. Bressler believe that Althusser fails to differentiate concepts because numerous points remain similar. He says that worldview to the people remains craftily shaped by an intricate messages network sent to them by the elements associated with the superstructure. This is not different from Lukacs idea, which directly mirrors a society’s realization developed by society that is created by the bourgeois, as the two theories are the same.
It is obvious that Marxism remains a socially constructed phrase that is based on Marx’s notions. Even though a pure definition is not available, there is a need for a different title. In the end, Marxism boils down all to the proletariat together with the bourgeois, as their ideas, thoughts, as well as actions remain socially and culturally rooted to the working class by those considered upper class. This means that if the mode thoughts fail to adhere to such principles then they are not considered Marxist and are not impure.