Capitalism Ideas in Cherry Orchard and Death of a Salesman - Essay Example

Capitalism and its Workers: The Destruction and the Making of Humanity 12 August Idealism takes a backstage in a capitalist society, when social systems are in transition and social classes tend to be rigid. Not all workers, for instance, attain the promises of the American Dream. Others are triumphant in overcoming their poverty, but sometimes, they are still not happy with their success. In The Cherry Orchard, Anton Chekhov champions the causes of the industrious working class which manages to rise up in the new world system. Arthur Miller presents a more dismal fate for workers in Death of a Salesman. The Lomans do not fit the perfect picture of a happy American family. This essay compares and contrasts these plays in terms of the social critique they offer. They both criticise the socio-economic structures of their societies for offering empty dreams to workers and skewing definitions of success and happiness, when in reality, their poverty is permanent most of the time; The Cherry Orchard, however, offers a more positive regard for dreamers, who do something about their dreams rather than passively waiting for it to come true, and it also respects the weaknesses of the human race for folly and insecurity as an essential part of their being. Capitalism somehow supports economic equality because of the economic opportunities it can offer to the poor and working classes of society. At the beginning of the twentieth century, feudalism is transitioning to capitalism in Russia. The Cherry Orchard exposes changes in the social class structure, where the “defeat of the cultured elite” is prominent (Brand and Moe, 2009, p. 1). Chekhov describes Madame Ranevskaya’s household as a representation of the past, in particular, the “passing of the semifeudal existence of Russian landowners on their country estates” (Buckner, 2010, p. 2). Ranevskaya stands for the weakening Russian aristocracy, which has declined after centuries of being accustomed to an extravagant lifestyle. The aristocrats are used to benign power, and soon, the semi-educated, but determined, middle-class usurped their economic status. Lopakhin is the son of a serf in Ranevskaya’s orchard, but because of his perseverance, which aristocrats seldom had, he became wealthy and powerful. He represents the working class, having fruitfully climbed the social ladder. Despite his success, he has developed learned inferiority and believes that he will always be a lower-class individual: “...youll find Im still a peasant down to the marrow of my bones” (Chekhov, 1904, Act 1). He is paradoxically rich on the outside, but poor in the inside. Miller presents the ideals of the American Dream in Death of a Salesman. Willy ardently believes in the fruition of the American Dream. He thinks of himself as an important salesman because of his past contribution to his company’s success. In addition, Willy asserts that Ben’s success can be his own someday, if not through his efforts, but through his sons, Biff and Happy. Willy can still remember what Uncle Ben told him: “When I was seventeen I walked into the jungle, and when I was twenty-one I walked out. And by God I was rich” (Miller, 1949, p. xxvi). Willy welds himself to that dream, the dream of being enormously rich and powerful. Capitalism promotes these dreams among the working class. It dangles the American Dream as the ultimate trophy for workers, who work the hardest and longest for their companies. Having dreams and acting on them is critical to happiness, even if it is temporary, and sometimes, superficial. On the outside, Will seems to have a good life. He works hard as a salesman, and for some time, he has given his family a semblance of economic stability. However, Willy is unhappy in so many ways. He is unhappy with his life in general, including his marriage. As a result, he has an affair that Biff discovers. This discovery psychologically tears Willy apart. He sees himself as a good husband and father, and yet deep down, he is disappointed with who he has become. Chekhov stresses the importance of acting on goals or dreams in life. Madame Ranevskaya resides in a dream world. In this dream, she is wealthy and popular. She sells her villa so that she can send her daughter Anya to Paris. She maintains the same lifestyle that they once had, when they had wealth and fame. Anya informs Varya of their mother’s excesses: “We had dinner at a station; she asked for all the expensive things, and tipped the waiters one rouble each” (Chekhov, 1904, p. 1). Only Ranevskaya’s daughters are aware of their reality; they are becoming destitute fast, but their mother does not want to face that reality at all. In addition, Ranevskaya seeks to save the orchard for what it represents. It stands for her memories of her aristocracy. She needs it because it feeds her ability to dwell in the past. She feels distraught that she cannot rely on anyone, including Gael. For Gael, the orchard is about fame. He tells Lopakhin that their cherry orchard was once mentioned in the Encyclopaedic Dictionary. The encyclopaedia is a symbol of the past that will soon be remembered, only through reading about it. These characters from both plays know what it means to have a dream and to fight for it. They realise that dreaming is not the same as having these dreams realised, and sometimes, having attained some part of the dream may bring happiness, but not always enduringly. The American Dream is a fantasy because the working class and those in declining social status cannot access sufficient capital and skills needed to succeed. The Cherry Orchard shows that Lopakhin can be successful, but the rest remain poor or have become poor. Ranevskaya and Gael have lost their connections and ability to succeed in a capitalist world. Gaev illustrates the futility of dreaming: “I work my brains to their hardest. Ive several remedies, very many, and that really means Ive none at all” (Chekhov, 1904, p.1). Apparently, he lacks the skills that are indispensable in finding a decent-paying job. At the same time, Anya and Varya are disadvantaged because of their gender. They also cannot find jobs that can give them enough money to maintain their family’s properties. At best, they can only wait for betrothal to wealthy suitors, but Varya will wait all her life. Lopakhin will never muster the courage and confidence to propose to her. In Death of a Salesman, capitalism does not depend on goodwill, but on money and connections. Biff wants to start a new business for the sake of his father, but when he goes to Mr. Oliver to get a loan, the latter does not remember him at all. Biff cannot borrow money from the bank since he has no property of his own to show as collateral. In his case, capitalism is kind only to the rich. Willy also finds that his social status declines with his age and economic contribution to his company. He asks his boss for a local assignment, but the latter fires him instead. Elliott (2010) explains that the capitalist system sees young men as the only significant workforce: The dog-eat-dog capitalist system of midcentury America has no place for a salesman who can no longer sell or for an unmarried woman over thirty with quaintly anachronistic manners who favours the civilizing influences of art, music, and literature over the crudeness of the marketplace. (p. 44). In other words, Miller shows that the aging cannot expect happiness and success in the modern capitalist world. These two plays assert that capitalism breeds money for those in power already. Sometimes, a working class or two break through the glass ceiling, but these success stories are rare. In real life, many of the working class stay poor and unable to change their socio-economic conditions, especially when they are already old. Capitalism relies on deception and violence to produce success instead of integrity and hard work. Ranevskaya suspends the reality of her poverty. She lives as if she were still rich, because she feels that the appearance of being wealthy can stave off her poverty. Still, she cannot deny for so long that because of her family’s decadence and laziness, they have lost their former economic status. Trofimov believes that the world has become a cemetery for the working class. He describes to Anya what their Cherry Orchard truly represents. For him, it signifies the death of human dignity: “Think, Anya, your grandfather, your great-grandfather, and all your ancestors were serf-owners, they owned living souls; and now, doesnt something human look at you from every cherry in the orchard, every leaf and every stalk?” (Chekhov, 1904, p. 2). Trofimov argues that capitalism is inhuman because in order to succeed, it steps on the backs and souls of all who are poor. And the greatest problem of capitalism, Trofimov suggests, is that it is an inherently inequitable socio-economic system. Despite this view, he believes that he and Anya can be happy, especially when their eyes are opened to their society’s social injustice. In Death of a Salesman, Uncle Ben teaches Biff that aggression and trick are central to success. Uncle Ben spars with Biff, whom he deceives, in order to win. He points the umbrella to Biffs eye and tells him: “Never fight fair with a stranger, boy…Youll never get out of the jungle that way” (Miller, 1949, p. 38). This scene suggests that Miller believes that capitalism will not provide real happiness since it is based on greed and lies. Willy is a master of deception. He deceives others that he has large sales and that Biff is a successful businessman. He deceives his entire family about his mental health and economic status. He deceives his wife and has an extra marital affair. He deceives his children that he knows what success is and how it can be attained, while he cannot achieve it in his lifetime. Finally, Willy deceives himself that he is an important asset of his company, while he is a dispensable worker with no lifetime job security. The tragedy of being a common person is dying as one. In The Cherry Orchard, Lopakhin breaks the cycle of poverty in his family because of his perseverance and prudence. What the aristocrat lacked in order to remain rich, he excelled in. Unfortunately, Lopakhin remains a poor folk inside. Ironically, he becomes rich but he will die poor because of his viewpoint of himself as part of the poor folk. Fiers is one of the characters in this play that dies poor. His entrance at the end leaves the audience thinking that here is a poor man, who is so poor that no one remembers him. No one cares for him. No one even sees him. As he lies down quietly, his status shouts itself. His poverty lies with him forever. Death of a Salesman shows different faces of poverty. Willy dies poor in more ways than one. He is poor in wealth because he cannot provide for his own family anymore. Most of all, he is poor in spirit because all his life, he strove for material and physical development only. His tragedy is not that he did not become as rich as Ben or Charley. His greatest disappointment in life is that he has not lived up to the standards of being a good person because he has been a negligent father and husband. Chekhov remains more positive than Miller because for him, dreaming is better than having no goals at all in life. Chekhov suggests that people without any aspiration in life is worse than dreamers like Ranevskaya. Yephodov is known as two-and-twenty misfortunes because of his unfailing bad luck. He knows that he is a total failure, and he accepts it wholeheartedly. He shares this feeling of self-acceptance to Lopakhin: “Some misfortune happens to me every day. But I dont complain; Im used to it, and I can smile” (Chekhov, 1904, 1). On the one hand, this is optimism, which is good for people to stay hopeful in life. On the other hand, it stands for lack of ambition and real drive in this world. To accept failure results in everlasting failure indeed. Charlotta, the governess, enjoys making others happy. Nevertheless, she keeps an offbeat viewpoint about life: “If you let people kiss your hand, then theyll want your elbow, then your shoulder, and then” (Chekhov, 1904, 1). Another character, Yasha, the young valet, does not dream for anything. He enjoys life as it is without regard for other people’s emotions. After Dunyasha confesses her love for him, he retorts: “I think this: if a girl loves anybody, then that means shes immoral” (Chekhov, 1904, 2). Chekhov renounces the attitudes of people who do not have any hope for themselves and in others. Miller accepts the futility of running after success in a capitalist society, while Chekhov might say that this dream is better than having none at all. Miller asserts that dreaming is senseless in a society of materialist desires, but Chekhov believes in the relativity of happiness and success. Happy and Biff are stuck in dead-end menial jobs, but they tell others that they are successful businesspeople. Willy seemingly nurtured sons like him – people who think that being materially successful is enough for happiness. In addition, Miller shows the hopelessness of the working class, who are used to deluding themselves about success and happiness. Biff and Happy think of unrealistic plans, like fleeing to the West, where they will be wealthy ranchers, or starting up a sporting goods business. They are like children playing with toys because without these dreams, their existence will be exposed as painfully insignificant in the grand scheme of the capitalist society. Chekhov has more hope for humanity. He develops ambiguous characters because he thinks that “to judge between good and bad, between successful and unsuccessful, would need the eye of God” (Buckner, 2010, p.2). Buckner (2010) emphasises that Chekhov does not want to “play God but to be the eye of the camera” so that readers can assess the lives and decisions of the characters on their own (p. 2). He suggests that Chekhov believes in the numerous possibilities of being good. The good is like the truth that cannot be accurately defined. Trofimov pushes Madame Ranevskaya to “face the truth,” and she answers, “What truth?” (Chekhov, 1904, 3). This dialogue suggests that Chekhov thinks that truth is relative. The truth about happiness and success relies on people who define them for their own satisfaction. Unlike Miller who sees pessimism in human nature because of social stratification, Chekhov asserts that humanity’s imperfection is part of its route toward happiness. Chekhov’s friend Maxim Gorky argues that Chekhov knows the beauty in humanity’s ugliness: “No one ever understood the tragic nature of life’s trifles so clearly and intuitively as Chekhov did” (Buckner, 2010, p. 2). Chekhov believes that humanity has its ups and downs and that is what makes their life interesting and sometimes, happy. Gorky says that for Chekhov: “One moment he would be talking with warmth, gravity, and sincerity, and the next he would be laughing at himself and his own words” (Buckner, 2010, p. 2). Chekhov projects his identity on his characters too. Madame Ranevskaya knows the consequences of her spendthrift ways: “Ive always scattered money about without holding myself in, like a madwoman, and I married a man who made nothing but debts” (Chekhov, 1904, 2). She knows that their coffers will be emptied, but she stopped caring. She only wants to be happy in her illusions of their wealth. Trofimov offers an opposite view of society. He thinks that “All Russia is our orchard” (Chekhov, 1904, 2). As he says this, it suggests that the world is wasted on pursuing material goals. Nevertheless, he remains hopeful. An orchard is something that people work on. He still thinks that he and Anya can be happy. He tells her: “There is happiness, there it comes; it comes nearer and nearer; I hear its steps already. And if we do not see it we shall not know it, but what does that matter? Others will see it!” (Chekhov, 1904, 2). His optimism hints that happiness is personal. Society is damned with its perverted sense of happiness and success. But somehow, he knows that others will find a way to true happiness. And if they can find it, he and Anya also can. Death of a Salesman argues that dreams are illusions for the working class. Because of the constraints of capitalism, these material desires are only promises that will never be kept. The Cherry Orchard shows examples of materially successful people. Chekhov agrees with Miller that capitalism breeds social inequality. Nevertheless, Chekhov stresses that happiness and success are products of people’s individual definitions too. The world might be unfair, but people can find their space of happiness and success if they want to. Humanity makes itself from its failings too. Reference List Brand, G. and Moe, C. H., 2009. The Cherry Orchard. Magill’s Survey of World Literature, pp. 1–2. Buckner, S., 2010. The Cherry Orchard. Masterplots, pp. 1–3. Chekhov, A., 1904. The Cherry Orchard. [Online] Available at: . Elliott, K., 2010. Critical contexts: uncommon tragic protagonists: Blanche DuBois and Willy Loman. Critical Insights: A Streetcar Named Desire, pp. 41–55. Miller, A., 1949. Death of a Salesman. London: Methuen Drama. Read More