How can you relate Karl marx's theory of alienation to Creon in Antigone?

Question

i know some basics of karl marx's theory of alienation, basically people who produce the the products are alienated from it becuase they are working for the person who owns such products. and that workers can't use the products they've produced to engage in further productivity therefore they are alienated in society. i hope thats correct. also, workers produce wealth but the workers are deprived of its benefits (their wealth). so relating to creon, i was goign to say that Creon is the capitalist, that he is the one that has all the benefits without producing anything. his position of the king was inherited becuase oedipus died. and he basically tells Antigone what to do. you are going to die. or you are goign to marry haemon etc.. btw this is a project i'm doing, and i'm suppose to talk about as my topic stated.. i want to compare marx's theory of communism with capitalism, but it seems like both creon and antigone is capitlism? cuz they both only want individual rights sorta?

Answer 1

The person above me lists a great deal of information surrounding marxism, but it can be difficult sifting through the information you need, in order to remain relevant to your topic.

Basically, to 'jump-start' you're memory on Marxism [It seems a little thin] I'll list out the key points:

Marxism: Capitalistic society, two types of social class:

* Capitalist (Owns means of production, exploits proletariat)

* Proletariat (Working class, no social mobility, does not own  

    any means of production)

I'm not too sure of what the social history is, regarding Creon / Antigone, however, since you're studying it, you should be able to.

Therefore, take the basic points of marxism, apply them to your knowledge of Creon, and then make you're evaluation.

Answer 2

Capitalism is one direction of communism where the worker is alienated in production because his role as worker is ambiguous as provider and owner, i.e. which am I, owner or owned.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wor...

Karl Marx

Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

--------------------------------------...

'Private Property and Communism

The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction – hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution.



The transcendence of self-estrangement follows the same course as self-estrangement. Private property is first considered only in its objective aspect – but nevertheless with labour as its essence. Its form of existence is therefore capital, which is to be annulled “as such” (Proudhon). Or a particular form of labour – labour levelled down, fragmented, and therefore unfree – is conceived as the source of private property’s perniciousness and of its existence in estrangement from men. For instance, Fourier, who, like the Physiocrats, also conceives agricultural labour to be at least the exemplary type, whereas Saint-Simon declares in contrast that industrial labour as such is the essence, and accordingly aspires to the exclusive rule of the industrialists and the improvement of the workers’ condition. Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property – at first as universal private property.

By embracing this relation as a whole, communism is: ......'

My interpretation: Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property, as private property transformed into universal private property in a society of no defined notions for belief.