Marxist Psychoanalysis of Conrad's Heart of Darkness

        This is a Marxist analysis of a selection from Section 3 of "Heart of Darkness" by Conrad. I will defend my theoretical perspectives for my choice while explaining why this theory is more beneficial to my chosen section. I will then have a conversation regarding my choice and the difference between the Marxist theory and a Deconstructive theory. 

'This lot of ivory now is really mine. The Company did not pay for it. I collected it myself at a very great personal risk. I am afraid they will try to claim it as theirs though. H'm. It is a difficult case. What do you think I ought to do -resist? Eh? I want no more than justice.'

        According to our text, Marx came up with the "labor theory of value". With which "he argued that the extra or "surplus value" in goods that allow them to be sold for more than they cost to make comes from labor. Workers put more value into a commodity or good than they are paid for." (Rivkin and Ryan, 659) Based on this theory I deduce the passage to be about a man who feels under-compensated for his "very great personal risk" to get the ivory. Which Marx addresses as "he does not even reckon labor as a part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life." (Rivkin and Ryan, 660) This is how and why Kurtz can justify his actions of claiming he ivory as his own.

        I believe that this passage is not a passage that needs to be dissected out for meaning through deconstruction as much as it needs to be understood from a commodities perspective that Kurtz was a greedy man and was willing to do whatever to get the job done but in doing so needed compensation of a certain kind and if that was not met he would simply claim what was not claimed, as the ivory was more valuable then Kurtz's "personal risk".   

Works Cited:

• Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. "Chapter 5: Wage Labor and Capital Karl Marx."Literary theory: an anthology. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2013. 659-60. Print.
• Conrad, Joseph. "Heart of Darkness."Gutenburg.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2017. 

S writing to:

M,

I found it interesting that Kurtz was so concerned about justice, but only as it applied to him. He had no concern for the native people of the damage caused by his greed. Although I can see why Marlow admired Kurtz in many ways, I think he truly represented the selfishness and greed of the English people during this era of time. Everything Kurtz did was for his own benefit, until the moment he died.

M writing to:

Stephanie, 

I completely agree with the greed aspect. It is hard for some people to see another person's greed when they have found admirable attributes about that person but another person can see clear as day that all things the admired person is doing it for personal gain. Thank you for bringing up that great point!

~M

H writing to: 

M

Your analysis of Kurt here is very significant to me because I think it was a key concept to both the theories but also the stories. Specifically, when you noted that "Kurtz was a greedy man and was willing to do whatever to get the job done", was a key part of the story and to your analysis and stood out to me because of such.