Jingoism in America’s Economy

Most Americans would argue that a capitalist economy is one of the strongest factors in forming a nation, however Karl Marx and Comte de Saint Simon, two enlightened philosophers, found major flaws in this system. Marx points out in his essay “Estranged Labor” how a capitalist economy alienates certain workers. Specifically he pointed out how some workers do not own the goods they produce and solely work for others, which in turn lends to a loss of self. ((Karl Marx, Estranged Labor)) Comte de Saint Simon criticized capitalism as well, however focused less on the worker and more on how capitalism could affect the people as a whole. He hypothesized that the competitive nature of capitalism would only allow a small elite group of people to gain from the system and it would also lead to people making fewer honest decisions in order to gain. ((Comte de Saint Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry))


These two men have very opposing views from Adam Smith, the English philosopher that we as Americans draw most of our influence of capitalism from. Smith argued that a capitalist economy would increase production and instigate innovation. ((Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations)) Neither Comte de Saint Simon nor Karl Marx necessarily disagreed with these points, the question they ask is; at what cost? They ask if we would rather risk our honest work and our sense of self for a few individuals to succeed?
The question I now pose is one based on a term we learned in class the other day: jingoism. Are Americans so strong willed to believe that we are right no matter the obvious issues with our economic system that we would never consider changing it? Comte de Saint Simon and Karl Marx might say so.

Dehumanized: the Individual in Regards to Industry

Karl Marx’s “Estranged Labour” details the ruthless system that is ‘The Money System.’  This system strikes chords similar to those of Thomas Hobbes’ theory on the state of nature where every human is in competition with one another; Marx states that “the political economy promotes greed and competition amongst the greedy” ((Marx, Estranged Labour, 1844))  which adds a layer of economy to Hobbes’ theory.  However, Marx takes it yet another step forward by asserting the dehumanization of those who work in industry.  He asserts “The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object” ((Marx, Estranged Labour, 1844)) and “the greater this product, the less is he himself.” ((Marx, Estranged Labour, 1844))In both these statements, Marx is alluding to the loss of individual identity within the confines of industry, as the owners of these industries are only concerned with the money they will be making through these people, and not their individual interests.

Marx could not be more correct with making these assumptions of the human identity.  As individuals become more engrossed in their mundane work, they lose what makes them different from others.  With this loss of identity comes the loss of a person’s interests in the workplace; their industrial occupations have become mind-numbing tasks that have become solely a means for currency; there is no other purpose for them to be at the job aside from providing a way of survival.

Although Marx’s summations of industry are grim, they are true.  One can even see Marx’s assertions about the individual working in industry in today’s world with entry level jobs found in food service or retail sale; many people work those jobs for no other benefit than accruing cash.  How many people actually worked at McDonalds over the summer because they loved being around those deep fryers all day?  A single person’s interests are not a priority in the eyes of big businesses; their goal is to make as much money at as little cost as possible.

How, if at all possible, could industry conditions be improved?  What implications would this have on the entire industrial system?

Also as a side note it was unclear to me what Marx explained in section XXV of this reading where he wrote about who owns the product of labor.  I understand it was somewhat abstract, but could somebody please clarify the first few paragraphs for me?  Specifically the concept of the ‘alien being.’

Socialist Opinions in an Industrial Society

Robert Owen


  • Robert Owen
  • English cotton manufacturer
  • “Utopian” socialist and workers’ rights advocate
  • Headed England’s Revolutionary Trades Union movement in 1830s
  • Worked in America/England


  • Industrial Revolution is booming
  • Working conditions are not good and there are few laws in place to protect them
  • In United States, President Andrew Jackson defunded Second Bank of U.S. on March 28 (much to many peoples’ disapproval)


  • Negative opinion on the flaws of the system
  • Persuasive with extended flowery (yet still understandable) language


  • Literate upper/middle class
  • Voters, landowners, business owners (people of everyday influence)
  • Great Britain’s people


  • Explain why the current system is so flawed
  • Incite change in a bloodless revolution


  • Unite as Consolidated Union
  • By holding a strong moral influence, help man reach its full potential outside the evil grasps of the current flawed system

Karl Marx


  • Karl Marx
  • Wealthy middle class
  • When this was published he was working as the editor to a paper in Paris


  • Industrial Revolution
  • Very poor conditions for workers
  • France during the July Monarchy


  • Very philosophical… breaks down each basic element and defines/redefines to reach a certain conclusion
  • Rational
  • Easy to understand and follow


  • Workers
  • Lower classes of Paris


  • Reach the workers and convince them of a socialist system where they are not devalued


  • Political economy based on greed and competition
  • Workers are objectified, estranged, and treated poorly in a system based on greed
  • People are alienated from their products by the system which contradicts their nature
  • Private property causes this estrangement

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon


  • Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon
  • Scientist, businessman, and theorist
  • Writing had more influence after his death


  • France under Napoleon’s constitutional monarchy
  • Industrial rev with poor working conditions and a lot of angry, hungry workers


  • Emotional and persuasive
  • Many questions


  • Working class and middle class


  • Offer an opinion against laissez-faire economics


  • Personal and social interests do not always coincide, which is why laissez-faire economics don’t always work
  • Those at the top become corrupted while those at the bottom suffer

Critiques of Capitalism

“The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry”:

Author: Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) a French political and economic theorist that became a strong advocator of changing the free trade “laissez-faire” system of political economy, to a more individualized approach; focusing on the poor. His writings impacted generations of French theorist.

Context: Claude is writing during the French Revolution, as apart of the rebellious Third Estate. Tired of seeing what he calls an imperfect industry thrive, seeing several fortunate individuals triumph over the many, he advocated for a change in the political system that addressed more the needs of his fellow commoner; the third estate.

Language: His persuasive attitude towards changing the already “stable” system is very present in this reading. He calls laissez-faire, the inevitable solution that economist of that day schemed their personal interests with, instead of the needs of the individual.

Audience:  This piece is directed towards the fellow poor commoner that Claude eventually became after spending his self earned money on his various publications.

Intent: To alter the economic system in place that tends to benefit the rich, rather than the poor. To focus the needs on this system to the individual, and refocus the system on ideals of science.

Message: The free trade system needs to be abolished so that new ideals can be the catalysts for change towards a new system that benefits/addresses the needs of the poor.

“The Legacy of Robert Owen”:

Author: Robert Owen (1771-1858) was an organizer of cooperatives in England. As an advocator for universal education and workers rights he argues that nations are built upon a deceptive system.

Context: Owen is writing during a time of rebellion, in which these unions and cooperatives greatly impacted various minds during the revolution.

Language: Owen uses a tone of disgust with the population of Great Britain, which he believes is full of injustices that opposes real well being and true interests of every individual.

Audience: His message is mainly for people against the morals of an unjust system. He advocates for Consolidated Unions, and that his stance will not go unheard.

Intent: To not allow the ignorant to deprive you, the individual, of your well-being, happiness, and life. Promoting the value of men of industry, and producers of wealth and knowledge.

Message: The system that nations are built upon are in essence deceptive and/or ignorant. These systems can do no good to man, but only continuously produce evil.

“Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 – Estranged Labor”:

Author: Karl Marx, a revolutionary specialist, the founder of Marxism. His work laid the foundation for understanding capital and labour relations.

Context: Marx elaborates on the vicious cycle that affects workers, and how they become commodities after a grueling production process.

Language: Marx presents facts, rather than opinion, and uses economic rational to establish grounds for a society that leans toward bettering conditions for the proletariat.

Audience: The average commoner and proletariat worker in the workforce.

Intent: To elaborate on the power that capitalist nature has on the average proletariat worker.

Message: The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size.

Wollstonecraft and Marx

“After attacking the sacred majesty of kings, I shall scarcely exit surprise by adding my firm persuasion that every profession, in which great subordination of rank constitutes its power, is highly injurious to morality.” I chose this line because this is where Mary Wollstonecraft transitions from her criticisms of the monarchy and those ruling civilians to her criticisms of all who are more powerful in the workplace and who utilize power over others to their benefit. This is a critical step because many discussed their issues with the autocracy of the government, however not all recognized the smaller- scale occurrences in everyday life. She continues on to use armies as examples of ineffective institutions for humanity as “subordination and rigor are the very sinews of military discipline,” and thus will not provide the very freedoms that humans will look for in the long run. Wollstonecraft provides a look into our very institutionalized power struggles- where citizens can not exclusively blame the monarchy and must turn towards the struggles within each other.

In this section of the passage, Wollstonecraft appears to have a similar perspective to that of Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto, written about 50 years later. Just as she recognized the power dynamics of society and how that influences humanity, Marx also attempts to address the issue of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat who are bound in an inevitable power struggle based on their class. Estranged Labor also appears reminiscent of Wollstonecraft, as she mentions that “authority pushes the crowd of subalterns forward, they scarcely know or care why, with headlong fury,” showing how those subordinate lose themselves in the work they do- in the work that is chosen for them. Both works recognize how this harms the character of the individual, as Wollstonecraft states that “the character of every man is, in some degree, formed by his profession,” and Estranged Labor similarly recognized that the worker is distanced from their own identity. Both attribute this to the lack of personal choice in the professions, and trace that back to those with more power in the workplace who make decisions for others.

Interchangeable Parts

“These workers, forced to sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, and all the fluctuations of the market.”

I chose this passage because it relates directly to the readings and class topics that have been discussed over the past week. It expresses very similar ideas to those of Oastler and Heine, and the tones are very similar to Marx’s estranged labor.

Marx notes the differences between classes and the shifts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The lower tiers of the middle class, the tradespeople, morphed into the proletariat as technology made their trades obsolete. Marx argues that capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable because it wears down the proletariat and continues to exhaust its resources with no sign of slowing down. The members of the working class, regardless of age and sex, are treated as interchangeable parts in the capitalist system; they are a “commodity like every other article of commerce.” They are susceptible to all the uncertainties of the market and the demand for labor. Technology was improving rapidly and replacing human workers with gears and steam; not only was the worker treated as a disposable commodity in the market, he was also not guaranteed any security in his job whatsoever.The worker was paid barely enough wages to maintain his life. He did not earn enough money to acquire any personal property; he had to live under the roof of a landlord who exploited him further. This is Marx’s main argument for the abolition of private property rights. The vast majority of the population was already absolutely unable to acquire any private property, so this is in reality not a right at all, but a privilege reserved for the upper classes.

The Dangers of a Laissez Faire Economy

Owen, Comte de St. Simon, and Marx share similar disdain for laissez faire economies. All three vilify the effects of a free market, in stark contrast to the beliefs of Adam Smith. Owen and Comte de St. Simon are most explicit in their attacks on the free market, blaming its systems and its supporters for the overwhelming decadence of industrial Europe. They argue that laissez faire economies rewards those who exploit others while punishing those with any shred of decency or respect for their fellow man. This compels men to become more selfish and deceitful, or else face monetary destitution, the latter being the more appealing option to most. By this process, men aspiring to the same goal are forced into competition and rivalry, turned against each other by their economic situation. Owen pleads with the people of England to recognize this unnatural animosity, but the proponents of laissez faire economies are firm in their conviction that the interests of the individual and the interests of the society are intertwined. But as Owen elucidates, the laborers who manufacture the products which benefit society are often deprived of the fruits of their labor. The benefits of a free market economy are only immediately realized by those who are selfish and shameless, while the honest working people are left to trudge through fiscal turmoil.

While the United States’ economy is not a completely free market, the ideals of capitalism are still held in high regard by many U.S. citizens. However, as these authors have made obvious, a laissez fair economy is often only advantageous to a minority of the population. Do the pros of capitalism outweigh the cons? Is equality of opportunity more important than equality of outcome? Would we be a better nation if we were more fiscally equal? Or are we a better nation under the ideals of capitalism?

The Economic Option

All three of the historians that we examined had different viewpoints regarding economics than did Adam Smith. While Smith believed laissez-faire capitalism was the best economic method a country could employ, his opponents (Marx, Saint-Simon and Owens) all believed that it belittled the poor to such an extent that it was not a viable option. Although the capitalist method increases production to unforeseen levels, it creates an undeniable divide between social classes. The owners of the companies become much richer than the working class people, while all they have to do is sit down and watch the money being made in front of their eyes. Although this was clear exploitation of the working class, Smith believed that this was the best method because it helped the country grow economically, even though the people suffered. Marx was against this. He thought that if the gap between the rich and the poor got to an uncontrollable level the whole economy would come crashing down. The workers would get angry enough to rebel against the owners and the whole governmental system would plunge into anarchy, finally resulting in the “purest form of socialism”, communism. Saint-Simon also thought that the capitalist society would not work in the long run – when competitors in the same job went up against each other they would try to beat out the other person instead of being the best worker that they could be. He supported more of an “equality” economy where the owners would work to support their employees so they their workers would enjoy putting in the hours at the factory.

Which method do you think is best? There are pros and cons to each type of economy, but I feel you have to side with the one that provides the most growth for the country as a whole over individuals. Marx’s plan would lead to inevitable conflict, while Saint-Simon’s wouldn’t provide as much production that is desired. I would choose Adam Smith’s capitalism because it vaults the specific country into a whole new class on the world scale, while raising the bar for all of the people in said country.

Hungry, Hungry Hippos

[Marx, St. Simon, and Smith enjoy a casual evening gamenight together: The three are gathered in a small, softly lit apartment. Plainly furnished and with a worn in feel it could be any of the three. They are conversing easily around a small board game table and Smith reaches down into a bag at his feet]

Smith: [while rummaging around] Well…since it is my week to provide entertainment, I have brought choices! Three classic games for us to choose from.

*the other two nod in agreement*

Smith: First, Twister! Something for us to get our blood moving. Second, monopoly! Such a classic game of chance. And third, my favorite by far, hungry hungry hippos! Need I even explain my excitement for the latter.

*Marx and St. Simon eye each other cautiously*

Marx: Smith, while I do applaud your choice of twister, would you care to explain your thought process when choosing the other two games?

St. Simon: Yes, particularly the game of hippos…this is one I have not heard of before.

Smith: [Genuinely surprised] Never heard of hungry hungry hippos? Ah well, I will justify my choices for the two of you. I am surprised you would question my choice in monopoly, as I said before, it is such a perfect equilibrium of chance, and personal choice in economics!

Marx: Please elaborate.

Smith: Well you see, in a game of monopoly, it is not only where your piece lands, but the choices you make with the options you are given! In a game of monopoly, it is every man for himself competing fiercely to gain the most capital and property.

Marx: I do not see how this could be a positive incentive…

Smith: In the ideal economic system, it should be the goal of the individual to be as successful as he can possibly be. Laissez-faire! Monopoly is the ultimate competition in which the winners win big, and the losers always have hope that they can improve their earnings!

St. Simon: But surely this is not a game of entertainment, any group playing would obviously not find any enjoyment in it.

Smith: And why is that?

St. Simon: Look at this individuals, good sir, how can the group benefit if each individual is not protected? This game looks out only for the ruthless and the lucky, perhaps the corrupt as well. Where is the gain for those hard workers who receive nothing?

Smith: Ah, but their time will come. If the individual is persistent the he is bound to find some success!

Marx: I see that this game does not protect its participants at all…

Smith: But that is the joy, the competition, the free market! I see that the two of you are very reluctant to delve into monopoly with my, so perhaps another time. Ah well, hungry hungry hippos then! Each player is assigned a hippo and the objective is simple, obtain as many little balls of food as possible before the other players!

Marx: The resources are not divided up equally for all?

Smith: Oh Karl, this game is every man for himself! A cut throat race to get the most food and outlast your opponents, survival of the fittest!

Marx: But what if the other hippos were to join together, and rebel against the one who obtains the most resources?

St. Simon: We obviously do not understand the motive of this game Karl, it is simply in which the winners keep winning and leave nothing for the rest of us…

Marx: Ah, quite the form of entertainment, while one hippo gluts himself and the rest starve…

Smith: Gentlemen please! This is all in the name of good fun, good company, and every many for himself!

St. Simon: Might I suggest we settle for Twister?

[Scene fades out]

Kibbutzim Illustrating the Limits of Authority’s Power on Culture

I would like to examine where culture comes from. Plato argues that they come from education and government-organized social conditioning, and More seems to say that they come from leadership; it was, after all, Utopus that set the tone for a culture of acceptance and tolerance of different beliefs in Utopia. Marx, by contrast, argues that the economy is the root of all culture; every element of our culture and society is really a tool for and product of bourgeois power. I would like to argue that all three of these theories are wrong, and that culture is not as malleable under government’s or the economy’s hand as Plato, More, and Marx argue it to be. My paper will examine the limit of authority’s effect on culture, and point out what forces actually do shape societal attitudes; right now, it appears from my research that these forces are largely biological, and thus, it may be that culture is completely beyond authority’s control.

I plan to examine the success actual societies had in following Marx’s directions, since communism specifically sought to reinvent culture. Specifically, I will look at the success of socialism in kibbutzim. Kibbutzim are communities in Israel that are structured after communist ideology; even though modern kibbutzim have some deviations from the basic format, members of kibbutzim generally all work together on the kibbutz, live together, raise their children together, and share almost all property. Despite their long success—the first kibbutz was founded in 1909[1]–it appears that even kibbutzniks, residents of kibbutzim, have resisted the kibbutz tenets. There have been movements to create a wage system within kibbutzim, and parents have even resisted the kibbutz’s socialization of their children. In fact, in a recent article, “Discontent from Within”, Yael Darr points out the ways that literature overtly published by kibbutzniks for kibbutznik children and adolescents was actually a subversive weapon to voice dissatisfaction with the communal living model[2]. This dissatisfaction indicates the limits of the kibbutz government’s power in controlling kibbutz culture; though it tried to create a tightly controlled environment, it fomented a rebellious undercurrent. Even the generations that have lived their whole lives in kibbutzim are often discontent with the principles of collective property and collective living, according to Melford E. Spiro[3]. Thus, neither those who actively choose to live in kibbutzim (the parents of the 1940s and 1950s) nor the children who lived their whole lives in kibbutzim were able to fully submit to the kibbutz culture. There must, therefore, be an underlying force that opposed the kibbutz authority’s power over culture.

Spiro offers some guidance as to what these forces are. As he points out, the failure of kibbutz socialization may in fact be due to evolutionary psychology; the biological predispositions of kibbutzniks oppose kibbutz socialization. Spiro actually references one study that found that young children had difficulty sharing toys and caregivers’ attention with other children, even though sharing was the most important goal of kibbutz socialization; the biological predispositions of the children overpowered their socialization[4].

I would also like to examine the role of oxytocin, a hormone responsible for bonding, might have in forming an ideal society; one study[5] found that humans are more willing to help people of their own ethnicity. It is possible that the increasing heterogeneity[6] of kibbutzim has decreased a sense of bonding and unity among kibbutzniks, and so has made them less willing to live completely communally.

The fact that the socialization of children within the kibbutz is so limited by biological attitudes could be the downfall of Plato’s theory; the stability of his society relied almost entirely on socializing his citizens from birth in the proper attitudes and beliefs of his city-state. Marx and More similarly thought societal attitudes came from outside the individual; both believed that things as simple as the economy or leadership could revolutionize society, when it appears that values like greed are rooted deeply within each individual. Perhaps it is impossible that anyone can ever create an ideal society; that would require absolute control, as Kumar points out[7], something that biology is not willing to give.

Meanwhile, the studies coming out on oxytocin may show the impracticality of Marx’s communism; if even small kibbutzim are not bonded together tightly enough to live communally, then the large, international proletariat would never be able to hold itself together.

I believe my paper will be original. Spiro is the only article I’ve found thus far that looks at the relationship of evolutionary psychology to the failings of kibbutzim. My paper will be different from his because he did not consider the role of oxytocin in the unraveling of certain kibbutz values, nor did he use that unraveling to criticize the theories of Plato, More, and Marx.

The research for my paper will also be practical. All of the articles thus mentioned are available through the library website, and for more research on evolutionary psychology, I can use the free online journal, Evolutionary Psychology. The library many more available articles on kibbutzim, as well as commentaries on Plato, More, and Marx.

[1] Kerem, Moshe, et al. “Kibbutz Movement.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 121-138. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2587511103&v=2.1&u=carl22017&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w

[2] Yael Darr, “Discontent from Within: Hidden Dissent Against Communal Upbringing in Kibbutz Children’s Literature of the 1940s & 1950s,” Israel Studies 16 no. 2 (2011), 127-150.

[3] Melford E. Spiro, “Utopia and Its Discontents: The Kibbutz and Its Historical Vicissitudes,” American Anthropologist 106 no. 3 (2004), 556-586.

[4] Spiro, “Utopias and Its Discontents,” 564.

[5] De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Lindred L. Greer, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Shaul Shalvi, and Michel J. J. Handgraaf, “Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 no. 2 (2011), 1-5.

[6] Kerem, “Kibbutz Movement,” 126.

[7] Krishan Kumar, Utopianism: Concepts in Social Thought (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), 19.




Primary Sources

Plato. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2000.

Through the voice of Socrates, Plato outlines a design for an ideal city-state, where all the inhabitants are raised by the state from at least the age of ten, and rulers are chosen based on their success in the educational system. This dependence on socialization is up for criticism in my paper, as it does not seem to have succeeded in kibbutzim.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings, edited by Bob Blaisdell, 124-150. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2003.

Marx and Engels list the reasons why the proletariat, or working class, must rebel against the bourgeoisie, or the owners of the means of production. They call for an worldwide revolution that would eliminate all personal property and create a classless society. The Communist Manifesto serves as the backbone for kibbutz theory and culture; kibbutzim essentially create the society that Marx dreamed of, with no private property, and theoretically no class.

More, Thomas. Utopia. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1997.

Secondary Sources

Darr, Yael. “Discontent from Within: Hidden Dissent Against Communal Upbringing in Kibbutz Children’s Literature of the 1940s & 1950s,” Israel Studies 16 no. 2 (2011): 127-150.

De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Lindred L. Greer, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Shaul Shalvi, and Michel J. J. Handgraaf, “Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, no. 2 (2011): 1-5.

Kerem, Moshe, et al. “Kibbutz Movement.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 121-138. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2587511103&v=2.1&u=carl22017&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w

This article gives a brief history of the kibbutz movement. Despite its brevity, it gives crucial information regarding the changes in kibbutz culture, such as the movement in the 1980s to have children sleep with their families. These changes could give important indications of dissatisfaction with kibbutz culture, and thus the limit of the kibbutz in socializing kibbutzniks.

Kumar, Krishan. Utopianism: Concepts in Social Thought. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1991.

Schon, Regine A., “Natural Parenting: Back to Basics Infant Care,” Evolutionary Psychology 5 no. 1 (2007): 102-183.

Spiro, Melford E. “Utopia and Its Discontents: The Kibbutz and Its Historical Vicissitudes,” American Anthropologist 106 no. 3 (2004): 556-586.

Spiro examines the failings of kibbutzim, or, specifically, the discontentment of kibbutzniks with kibbutz rules. He hypothesizes that this discontentment is due largely to evolutionary psychology, a finding that could be useful to my paper because it illustrates the inability of authority to completely control culture as Marx, Plato, and More believe authority should; authority is at war with biology.