Marxism in Jon Armstrong’s Yarn

Tane Cedar: The Central Figure in ’Yarn’

Tane Cedar, a master tailor, is central to Jon Armstrong’s Yarn. The plot takes place in the world of fashion. Tane Cedar is an ex-lover woman on the run from Tane authorities after returning late at night. She is bombarded with questions about where she has been, what happened, and what she was wearing. Jon Armstrong splits his works in such a way that he exposes crucial bits of Tane Cedar’s history, from his upbringing in the ghettos to the yarn-hoodlum to a lover to a fashion virtuoso, which binds into and clarifies what is going on in the main plot. The story contains delightful dark amusingness and Cedar is a fascinating character with an inward poise to him all through every one of his trials that makes him simple to love. Here, this worked extremely well for me. The novel has a very close relationship with the Marxist theories which is what this paper will explore. <\/p>

Karl Marx’s Bourgeoisie Concept in ’Yarn’

Karl Marx’s idea of the bourgeoisie is seen all over Jon Armstrong’s Yarn. In this concept, Karl Marx uses this term to refer to that class of people taking advantage and exploiting the less fortunate class (Marx et al., 54). They own certain things or means of production which others do not have. In such a case, they benefit more than those who are actively involved in providing labor needed in the creation of goods and services. In Jon Armstrong’s Yarn, a lot of top of the line fashion designers planners boast the ownership of the “slubs”, regions where the lower classes deliver the human resources expected to make material merchandise for society. While famous people and high-end fashion designers benefit from owning the slubs, they are as yet not sufficiently paid for the time and exertion they put into this work. In the novel, the ruling class and form architects are portrayals of the bourgeoisie class. How society is keep running inside the novel demonstrates the readers that Armstrong himself is extremely hostile to the idea of capitalism. By setting it up thusly, Armstrong is evaluating how entrepreneur social orders are run. He doesn’t seem to concur with the idea of capitalism and is indicating how the future could turn out if free enterprise social orders proceeded with their degenerate ways. According to Karl Marx, bourgeoisie refers to that social order where the high-class dominates at the expense of the middle class (55). Despite the fact that the middle class provides the direly needed labor and the market for the goods the middle class provides, they are disregarded. Despite the fact that bourgeoisie serves to modernize the society and revolutionize the industry, it also serves to monopolize the benefits thereof. This is exactly the case in Jon Armstrong’s Yarn. Marx depicts the laborer as a fighter, and as a slave. Qualifications of age and sex are ending up less critical as all individuals are just instruments of work. Besides, no sooner does the laborer get his wages from his exploitative, capitalist manager than he is exploited by other bourgeoisie, for example, his proprietor (Marx et al., 57).<\/p>

Commodity Fetishism in Jon Armstrong’s ’Yarn’

The idea of the possibility of commodity fetishism is also a concept that Jon Armstrong’s Yarn plays along with within it. The whole novel rotates around fashion. The fashion designers run the world. Individuals are named by the brands that they wear. Fashion is utilized to indicate which social classes individuals have a place with. Individuals of various brands pronounce wars on each other and murder each other in the boulevards. Deals agents offer prizes projects to their dedicated clients for proceeding to wear their brands. Armstrong can’t help contradicting fetishism and the creator marks that individuals display so as to demonstrate their status, even in reality. While he takes fetishism to the outrageous in the novel Yarn, it is still extremely predominant even in the United States today. Individuals circumvent parading their Louis Vuitton handbags and Versace pants. These individuals who wear fashioner brands are viewed as being by one means or another better than those without. According to Karl Marx, fetishism refers to the magical quality of a commodity (Marx, 68). At the first time of seeing a commodity, it appears as extremely obvious and trivial. However, an analysis of the commodity surprises the customer and even disapproves the outer eye. In fact, an even closer analysis \u201cbrings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties (Marx, 69). Marx further points out that the commodity will remain simple as long as it is tied to its use-value. Marx finds real social relations between laborers as an antecedent to the considerable working-class unrest. This forerunner is the thing that Marx calls \\\“class awareness\\\”, where the real social relations and organization are conceived (69). Prior to an upset can happen, specialists should first secure \\\“class cognizance\\\”, at that point they should join together. This will empower them to topple the industrialist class, making the conditions for a comrade society. In my view, commodity fetishism is a helpful idea from multiple points of view. Commodity fetishism portrays viably the connection between evidently ordinary regular practices and the powers of fundamental combination in free enterprise. It is to a great degree valuable as a state of mind about the inner rationale of the idea of capitalism. Yet, does it recount the entire story? While the capitalist idea is always globalized and meddling, it is apparent that we don’t \u2013 and can’t \u2013 live in an altogether ’promoted’ world. For one reason or another, the minute capitalism backfires, different types of life, emancipatory and moderate, return. For another reason, the idea of capitalism relies upon the state to keep it in presence, and the state, while additionally fetishised in its own specific manner, has a particular onerous rationale of its own, more about control and ’security’ than trade. What’s more, the hypothesis of item fetishism is constrained in its capacity to manage the essential estrangement of humankind and nature which supports the idea of capitalism. All things considered, it isn’t certain that a commodity fetishism theory ought to clarify all these different things also. The fetishism of commodities is adroitly substantial if comprehended as one of a scope of social rationales working in a conflictual and hybridized social field \u2013 without a doubt, as a standout amongst the most vital in Armstrong\u2019s Yarn. However, it turns out to be trickier on the off chance that it is taken as the keep going word on social life. Indeed, even inside Marxism, it is just when supplemented by thoughts of revolution and class struggle that it turns into a transformative idea (Marx, 71).<\/p>

The Demolition of Capitalism in ’Yarn’

In the novel Yarn, Jon Armstrong brings to the light of the readers that across the world, the capitalist society has reached extreme proportions and that this brings negative consequences. Throughout the novel, Jon Armstrong demolishes the idea of capitalism everywhere. In this concept, he completely goes against values of Marxism. In such particular incidents, Armstrong is very anti-capitalist. In fact, capitalism in any society serves to exploit the workers who work tirelessly in the production of goods and services. It is apparent that the definition for exploitation might have changed since the times of Marx. However, it is again true that vulnerable workers are taken advantage of by any capitalist minority. This is the same case in Jon Armstrong’s Yarn. The situation in Yarn can be likened to the sweatshops where laborers are exploited. However, Marx had a different opinion or rather definition of exploitation. According to Marx, exploitation was the forced appropriation of the unpaid labor of workers (19). What he implies in this statement is that all the people falling under the working class are exploited (20). The basis of any capitalist system is exploitation. The society in Jon Armstrong’s Yarn is purely capitalistic. The laborers represent the lower class that is exploited despite the fact that they produce wealth. On the other hand, those expropriate the wealth are the exploiters. In any capitalist system, the basic needs of the laborers are met by the commodities, for those that can afford them. That unfortunate class that is unable to produce goods for themselves and sell only has one commodity to sell; their ability to work and the labor power. Karl Marx refers to labor power as a special commodity. What this implies is that laborers produce the new value in commodities as seen in the final product, which belongs to the capitalist, anyway. The capitalist then only pays for the labor power as opposed to the value of a certain amount of completed labor. The celebrities and high-end fashion designers comprise the business owners’ class in Seattlehama (Armstrong, 33). Nowadays, brands are seen all over the place and individuals are frequently judged by the garments that they wear. A large portion of the clothes and merchandise are made by specialists who are regularly come up short on and exploited for the work that they do. Regardless of the way that materialistic products would be not able be delivered without them, it is the enormous entrepreneurs who benefit while doing practically zero work by any stretch of the imagination. The yarns produced by the middle class serve to maintain the idle lives of a minority ruling class. Provided the society is divided, like is the case in the novel, the middle class is usually exploited by the minority ruling class. To do this, the ruling class appropriates the sweat of those that work tirelessly sweating on their brow. Capitalism speaks to a verifiable time in which the production of commodities traverses the sum of society (Marx et al., 21). Human labor power is “commodified”. Like any other commodity, labor power additionally has a value. What’s more, a wage is gotten that is the cost of this commodity. Since surplus labor is exploited as the production of commodities, surplus work appears as surplus value. Capitalism is exceptionally created in the production of commodities so the exploitation of surplus work similarly speaks to a to a great degree complex issue. Capitalists commodify labor power and sell it according to its value. The production methods are likewise bought and claimed by the minority capitalist class. Business people come into ownership of the production methods and labor power through the procedure of course, and in addition, the subsequent items that in like manner stream back to them by means of the flow procedure to address their issues. Regardless of the possibility that everything is purchased and sold at its real value, business people can get the surplus-work that structures surplus value (Marx et al., 27).<\/p>

Conclusion

In conclusion, Jon Armstrong’s Yarn depicts a lot or Karl Marx’s theories and concepts including fetishism, the labor theory of value and worker exploitation, and the concept of the bourgeoisie. In the novel Yarn, Jon Armstrong brings to the light of the readers that across the world, the capitalist society has reached extreme proportions and that this brings negative consequences. Throughout the novel, Jon Armstrong demolishes the idea of capitalism everywhere. It is apparent that workers need to battle to diminish the extremity of the exploitation they go through in capitalist settings. In any case, as long as the capitalist framework exists, laborers, and the middle class as a whole will be exploited, and their unpaid work will remain the wellspring of the benefits that are the backbone of the capitalist framework. As indicated by Karl Marx, just when laborers will learn to control the production methods for their own particular advantage would exploitation are able to be annulled - at exactly that point will “the expropriators be seized. Once the methods of production have turned out to be capital, a specific amount of significant worth is enlarged through labor exploitation. Furthermore, this valorizing value is capital. In a production society, work influence additionally turns into a commodity, and its production can be completed by putting a specific measure of cash with a specific end goal to buy work power and the methods for production, and after that joining them. By doing this, the whole of cash contributed progress toward becoming valorizing value, subsequently getting to be noticeably capital. Marx alludes to the value contributed on the methods of production as steady capital. The estimation of the methods of production is only exchanged to the items. Alternate characters are more shallow however there are some truly intriguing ones like Brunne the form tyrant of Seattlehama, Vada his ex-sweetheart progressive and a couple of something beyond. The world-building is keeping pace with the story and the characters. ”Seattlehama: the fountain of liquid magma fueled sex and shopping capital of the world“ is the name of a part and a decent depiction of the setting. The ghettos or ”slubs“ where Tane grew up are hashed places where lives are shabby and laborers are exploited to support the plants. The fashion scene is as much a position of battling and warriors as in any cyberpunk story yet it additionally helps separating Tane in his emphasis on the yarn. More prominent realities about the world are revealed as the story advances. Jon Armstrong’s Yarn is a delightful comic drama about a stately ace tailor with some genuine aptitudes whose world is torn separated one day by an old sweetheart. It satisfies its name; it is to be sure a yarn of the best kind, one that dazzles you from the maiden page to the last. <\/p>

Works Cited

Armstrong, Jon. Yarn. San Francisco: Night Shade Books, 2010. Internet resource.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, George S. Rigakos, and Red Viktor. The Communist Manifesto

Illustrated: The Bourgeoisie. Ottawa: Red Quill Books, 2011. Print.

Marx, Karl, Samuel Moore, Edward B. Aveling, Friedrich Engels, and Ernest Untermann.

Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Chicago: C.H. Kerr & Company, 1906. Print.

Marx, Karl. The Fetishism of Commodities. In I. McIntosh (Ed.), Classical Sociology Theory:

New York: New York University Press, pp. 68-71: 1997. Print.