Lexi Anunson

Mr. Stenz
3A AE9
28 April 2015
Underlying Controversy of Marxist Thought
Controversy is everywhere in present-day society. Whether its a debate over
the ethics of animal experimentation or the color of an internet phenomenon of a
dress, people all over the world can be fierce when an argument pertains to
something in which they firmly believe. Controversy hasnt only existed in modern
day times, however. Hundreds of years ago, the prime cause for disagreement in
society was one that still exists today: which government would be the most
efficient. One reigning king of this discussion was always capitalism, where there
was a social class system that allowed free movement and everybody had the
capacity to become what they wanted to be. Karl Marx, a German philosopher,
thought otherwise. He believed that when given a class system, there will always be
one so oppressed that it will cause an eventual revolution until that class becomes
just as bad as the one they revolted against. Many popular novels can be looked at
through this lens of classist oppression, including those of classic English authors.
Charles Dickens supports the theory of Marxism in his novel A Tale of Two Cities. By
watching the actions and following the footsteps of the protagonists Madame
Defarge and Sydney Carton, readers can be sure of Dickens Marxist beliefs.
The most obvious example of Dickens support of Marxism is one of the
protagonists, Madame Defarge. Marxist theory describes in essence the nature of
class systems in any society. Within it, Karl Marx theorizes that in any society there
will be two natural classes that form: the proletariat (or, working class) and the

bourgeoisie (or, the nobility or rich). Marx also hypothesizes that through capitalism,
the proletariat group will be oppressed and exploited by the bourgeoisie until a
proletariat revolution. However, should the revolution succeed, the previously
oppressed will become no better than their oppressors and will alienate the new
proletariat class in kind, causing a cycle. In A Tale of Two Cities, Madame Defarge
exemplifies this cycle. She begins as a proletariat with no family due to bourgeoisie
and ends with morals just as flawed as the ones of those who were above her,
showing Dickens support of the theory of Marxism.
To be part of the proletarian class of Marxism, one must be oppressed.
Charles Dickens makes an example of his Marxist thought through the proletarian
Madame Defarge. Madame Defarge has every single reason to want to revolt: after
all, much of her family had been killed by certain members of the bourgeoisie just to
cover their tracks when she was young. Dr. Manette describes the deaths of her
siblings in his letter that reasoned why he was sent to jail:
My patient died, two hours before midnight - at a time, by my watch,
answering almost to the minute when I had first seen her. I was alone with
her, when her forlorn young head drooped gently on one side, and all her
earthly wrongs and sorrows ended. At last, she is dead? said the elder
[brother] as I walked in [downstairs]. She is dead, said I. I congratulate
you, my brother, were his words as he turned around. (341)
Manette, here, witnesses the death of Madame Defarges sister. Her sisters death
followed the murders of both her husband and her brother as well as her rape. All
of these were actions by the Marquiss brother, another member of the bourgeoisie.
Madame Defarge is given every reason to hate the members of nobility. After all,
she was left with little if any family following the murders of her siblings by one man

who was afraid to face consequences. Madame Defarges family was literally
oppressed to death, and that gives Madame perfect reasons to hate the bourgeoisie
enough to rise up against them. Charles Dickens looked to illustrate, using Madame
Defarge, the classic bourgeoisie oppression that would lead to a proletarian
revolution. Although her case may have been more severe than some others,
Charles Dickens shows well a little taste of what the proletariats might experience
under the evil bourgeoisie that lead a Marxist system. By creating this reason for
oppression, Dickens cements Madame Defarge as a member of the proletariat class
a a worthy leader for the revolution that proves his Marxist thought.
Due to the oppression that gives her her motivation, Madame Defarge serves
as an integral leader in the now uprising proletariat society. She leads the
revolution through its highs and lows, serving as an irreplaceable member. One of
the most crucial moments of her lead is the storming of the Bastille, where Madame
Defarge finally takes a massive stand over her previous oppressor: She stood
immovable close to the grim old officer, and remained immovable close to him...was
so close to him when he dropped dead under it, that, suddenly animated, she put
her foot upon his neck, and with her cruel knife - long ready - hewed off his head
(229). Madame Defarge, here, becomes a symbol of the revolution. Her class, the
proletariat, is done with the unfairness of the bourgeoisie. Theyre finally taking a
stand and Madame Defarge is foremost among them. She turns the tables on the
guards by doing what they had been doing to so many of her own class and cutting
off his very head. Not only is this a symbol of the proletariat revolution so integral to
Marxist theory, however; it also describes the beginning of the new cycle. Dickens
here makes it clear that when the proletariat class in Madame Defarge takes control
of the bourgeoisie, they wont be kind when choosing the fates of the previous

oppressors. In fact, the proletariats-turned bourgeoisie will be willing to bring forth

one of the most devastating forms of oppression to the ones who it is their turn to
oppress: death. Through showing the revolution through her eyes and introducing
the ongoing cycle of oppression, Charles Dickens makes clear his underlying Marxist
thought just beneath the pages of A Tale of Two Cities.
However, Charles Dickens makes his hardest-hitting point by completing that
aforementioned circle. When Madame Defarge makes the decision to bloodthirstily
attempt to kill those merely related to the family who killed her own, she becomes
just as morally unrighteous as those who gave her motivation to rise above them in
the first place, therefore returning us to point one in Charles Dickens circle of
Marxism apparent in this novel. Following her husbands question on where to
morally stop her conquest for revenge, Madame Defarge answers very simply:
Well, well, reasoned Defarge, but one must stop somewhere. After all, the
question is still where? At extermination, said Madame (352-353). Madame
Defarge makes a choice here not to stop as what she should believe as twisted
justice with the death of Charles Darnay, the Marquis son, but instead to stop at the
deaths of all who were related to him, including a woman who had been nothing but
kind to her and a child who had never gotten the chance to do wrong by her. This
has gone far past simple revenge for Madame Defarge: shes out for blood. Now,
instead of going for equality and justice, she is striving to become what she was
rising up against. A member of the bourgeoisie, perfectly in control and able to
exterminate all who rise against her. The Marxist cycle is complete. Using
Madame Defarge, Charles Dickens illustrates how simple desire for revenge
becomes a catalyst for oppression when given the opportunity to revolt against
those you are vengeful towards.

Madame Defarge exemplifies in Charles Dickens A Tale of Two Cities Marxist

theory at its most clear - an oppressed proletariat who rose above her superiors
only to end up just as bad to them as they once were to her. Through Madame
Defarge, Charles Dickens shows us just how much Karl Marxs theory was apparent
during the times of the French revolution just as it was apparent during the times in
which Charles Dickens himself lived.
Madame Defarge, however, is a very overt example of Marxism. In the other
city described in the novel, there is a character who Charles Dickens covertly
included as a support for Marxism: Sydney Carton. Although he may look at the
surface like a distinct support for capitalism, he is in reality an emotional proletariat
whose social status and execution both support the theory of Marxism.
One reason that Sydneys character is in support of Marxism is his social
status. Sydney Carton is at surface pretty well off - hes a lawyer, after all, and in a
time where not everyone had a job nearly as good as his or at all that was a pretty
good place to be. However, Sydney was the lawyer that nobody really trusted. His
friend, Stryver, is the man who receives all of the glory for Cartons hard work the lion to Cartons jackal. Sydney laments this fact in a conversation with Stryver
himself: Before Shrewsbury, and at Shrewsbury, and ever since Shrewsbury,
pursued Carton, you have fallen into your rank, and I have fallen into mine...you
were always somewhere, and I was always - nowhere. And whose fault was that?
Upon my soul, I am sure that it was not yours. You were always driving and riving
and shouldering and pressing, to that restless degree that I had no chance for my
life but in rust and repose (94). Although Stryver is nowhere near as intelligent in
his field as Sydney, he was always the one who received the glory. He basked in it
until there was nothing left in his wake but mere scraps for Carton, which leads him

to having a poor reputation both in his field and in his own head. Sydney Carton is
the working class to Stryvers bourgeoisie. His job by its very nature oppresses him
and turns him into a man with very little hope for the future. Its unlikely that
Dickens meant to create his strongest example of Marxist thought so implicitly
through Sydney Carton. Dickens is accidentally and covertly illustrating his notions
on human nature. Although he may not be economically oppressed, Charles Dickens
displays a different type of social status oppression through Sydney Carton.
Sydney is not only a proletariat by social means, though. Hes also, sadly, the
emotional punching bag of the novel. The poor man is a depressed alcoholic who
finally learns how to fall in love again with a woman only to have her never feel the
same way in part due to her own love for her soon-to-be husband. Its the words of
her husband, Charles Darnay, that confirm Sydney Cartons place as an emotional
proletariat: When he [Sydney] was gone, and in the course of an evening passed
with Miss Pross, the Doctor, and Mr. Lorry, Charles Darnay made some mentions of
this conversation in general terms, and spoke of Sydney Carton as a problem of
carelessness and recklessness (216). Sydney Cartons doing his very best to at
least remain friends with the family of the woman he loves, but even in doing that
Charles Darnay finds a way to put him down. After all, Charles is the one who got
the girl. Here, Charles Darnay, an otherwise benevolent character, falls into the
same trap as the rest of the bourgeoisie when faced with someone obviously
worse than he is. He emotionally abuses Sydney Carton simply because he can.
Hes Sydneys better in this situation; what reason would he have to treat Sydney
with any respect without the prompting of his wife? Dickens covertly illustrates that
emotional oppression, although it may not be physical nor economic, is just as
severe as any other in the realm of Marxist thought. Sydney Carton is emotionally

put down in this novel not only by himself but also by men like Charles Darnay who
had received the better end of life, cementing him as a covert proletariat supporting
Marxist theory.
Both of these types of oppression come together in a glorious way when
Carton attempts to redeem himself and his honor by taking Charles place and
being executed. Sydneys execution is Charles Dickens last foray into Marxism. The
execution happens by way of the guillotine, and Sydney Carton goes out just as
quickly as he came: The murmuring of many voices, the upturning of many faces,
the pressing on of many footsteps in the outskirts of the crowd, so that it swells
forward in a mass, like one great heave of water, all flashes away. Twenty-Three.
They said of him, about the city that night, that it was the peacefullest mans face
ever beheld there (389). Sydneys execution is a remarkable resolution to his
character. He finally becomes what hes always wanted to be - remembered by
those who he found most important. However, his execution serves only as
redemption for himself. Although he may have taken the place of Charles, the
execution is still happening and never stops serving as another way for the
newfound oppressors to use their power to kill people who had never done
anything to them. Nothing really changed for them - sure, Sydney died instead of
Charles, but they had no way of knowing that. The injustice displayed by this
execution is far more severe than any personal redemption could ever hope to heal.
This isnt a victory for love or for justice or for anything besides for the pride and
revenge of the oppressors in the minds of all but Sydney Carton. Although he saves
Charles, he doesnt do anything powerful enough to save anybody else from the
flawed system of Marxism thats on display here. In the end, he just becomes yet
another avenue by which the proletarians-turned-bourgeoisies can express their

newfound dominance in a manner natural in Marxist thought. Through Sydney

Cartons execution, Charles Darnay covertly and quite possibly accidentally gives
yet another point to Marxism.
Through his execution and emotional and social oppression, Sydney Carton
covertly displays a little bit of a different type of a proletariat. He shows that one
doesnt need to be poor to be oppressed by those who perceive themselves as
being higher and better than everyone beneath them. Charles Dickens makes his
Marxist thought very clear using Sydney Cartons storyline as an avenue.
By watching the two protagonists of Sydney Carton and Madame Defarge
follow along their near-mirrored storylines, a careful reader can understand that
Charles Dickens is in support of Marxist theory in his novel A Tale of Two Cities.
Although theres been many a cause for controversy in the history of modern Earth,
none has been quite so long standing as the debate over political systems.
Government theories have had long histories, spanning from ancient Rome to
medieval Europe to modern, everyday government, but none have made quite the
impact of the Marxist theory of human motivations and social change.