“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” Karl Marx says in his Communist Manifesto (34). Money talks. Everything else can be put aside, the simple and unfortunate truth is that money talks. The common man will always be looking for a way out of his downtrodden or disadvantaged state. After their country was torn apart following WWI, the poverty stricken Germans united against their scapegoat, the Jewish people. In many of their eyes, society has abandoned them and therefore they focus their attention on either changing that society or lashing out against it. During and after the depression in the United States, many people began to view communism as their way out; just as during the Red Scare many Americans began to view communists as their scapegoat. In the Book of Daniel, E.L. Doctorow conveys a message that society will not always be just, but rather society is always skewed in favor of the ruling and often wealthy class and away from the common and often poor man.
Doctorow comments that “law, in whatever name, protects privilege,” (184). More often than not it is the wealthy and fortunate that are able to gain political power, prestige and respect in their country. Even if they are not qualified to be in positions of power, money or a well known family name can buy a person the best opportunities available, including top-level universities and educations. Since the wealthy are the ones making law, the law reflects the interests of that particular class. Marx says that every step in the economic development of the “bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class” (37).
Marx tries to make it clear that “the ruling ideas of each age have forever been the ideas of its ruling class” (54). Correspondingly, in the Book of Daniel, Daniel believes that if his “mother had been anything but poor, I don’t think she would have been a red,” (33). That represents the complete opposite side of the spectrum. A person who views no potential economic success from their natural situation will almost always look to other means. If she had merely been born to a different set of circumstances, grew up in a different neighborhood, she would have been a part of the ruling class and the political and legal favoritism it receives.
The opposing dichotomies of wealthy and poor, or as Marx says, “oppressor and oppressed” completely dictate the way society is run (35). Early in the Book of Daniel, the electric chair is referred to as “methodology of capitalist economics,” (33). Later in the book, several other ways of torture and death are discussed in great detail. “Smoking” where a person is hung upside-down over a slow burning fire, (108) “knouting” (128) and “burning at the stake” (129) are all tortures that were only imposed on the lower classes, peasantry or slaves. No person of high reputation would ever be subjected to such a painful or demeaning death, if death would ever be applied at all. The ruling and wealthy class needs to maintain a certain level of fear in the poor majority, which could otherwise easily overthrow the wealthy ruling minority.
While discussing post World War II political procedure, one Senator commented that “we’ve got to scare the hell out of the American people,” (Doctorow 238). Our politics were based upon the imposition of fear, it’s clear enough in the words themselves, “red scare.” A reporter Daniel talks to mentions that “in the best of times… no one would have been afraid enough to throw a switch” (Doctorow 214). However, fear ran rampant throughout the country. In fact, during the trial of the Isaacsons, the literary counterparts of the Rosenbergs, “the death sentence was used as an investigative procedure,” (Doctorow 223). They were supposed to cave in and name more names, however they refused to give in and there was no turning back on the government’s part.
The Rosenberg’s, or the Isaacson’s, were “held to account for the [entire] Soviet Union. They are held to account for the conditions of the world today” (Doctorow 205). There were only two possible outcomes, “If [they are] found guilty it is the ruling power’s decision that he cannot be tolerated. If [they are] found innocent it is the ruling power’s decision that he need not be feared,” (Doctorow 184). Nothing in their trial was of any significance. There was no clear crime, no clear evidence or motive. The details of the trial were of little consequence, the end result was preordained when the couple refused to give up anymore names. The Attorney General is believed to have said, “Mr. President, these folks have got to fry,” (Doctorow 296).
However, what governments fail to realize is that when “the ruling class inflicts death upon those they fear… that death itself can still live,” (Doctorow 183). An argument can be made that to be considered a great man one must have been a martyr in some form. Would Julius Caesar be the face of the Roman Empire had he not been killed? Would approximately 1/3 of the world, and approximately 3/4 of the United States believe in Christianity had he not been slaughtered (according to http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm)?
Yet, for all the protest and public outcry of the trial of the Rosenbergs, “No cause had rallied. The world had not flamed to revolution… the cause seemed to be discredited as a political maneuver,” (Doctorow 296). Still, they never wanted to be made an example out of. Some people merely do what they believe in, regardless of any possible consequences, or public support. Antigone, the first female protagonist, does just that. In the famed Sophocles play, which shares the same name, Antigone follows the laws of her Gods and chooses to bury her brother. Creon acts much in the same way that Marx would expect thousands of years later. He looks after his own interests, to safeguard the state and his power. To Creon, his “country is [his] life” he cares not of what anybody else believes in (Sophocles 131). He made the law, and it protected and represented his own self-interests. Conversely, Antigone says she “knew that I should have to die,” (Sophocles 138). Antigone showed many of the same characteristics as the Isaacsons as she stood up for her beliefs, in the face of a prejudiced and self-serving governmental force.
Karl Marx states in his manifesto that “law, morality, religion” all are mere tools that contain prejudices which also “lurk in ambush with just as many bourgeois interests,” (48). Society is a nothing but prearranged events and illusions to create preconceptions and appease the common man. Daniel’s father tells him how “Jones Beach” is “named for the common man” (Doctorow 31). He also tries to explain to his young son “the function of public games like baseball” as well as the “economic class of baseball fans…why they needed baseball” (Doctorow 35). While in prison, Daniel’s father writes, “Banks and churches and courtrooms all depend on…illusion…if there was true justice why would such trappings be necessary” (Doctorow 198). In other words, why do courtrooms need to be lined in marble, fine wood and elaborate chandeliers, what are they trying to hide?
Perhaps in a perfect world without preconceptions, the dark, dirty courtrooms and law offices of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, would be perfectly sufficient. However, that is a world that can never exist. In our world, messages and preconceptions can be found everywhere. The most powerful metaphor in the Book of Daniel is that of Disneyland and American cartoons. One of the many things cartoons show us, Daniel explains, is that “we are able to walk on air, but only as long as our illusion supports us” (Doctorow 287). We can believe justice will always be served, as long as we buy into the pristine get-up of the courts themselves.
He talks of the consumer experience being more like a “Pavlovian process,” leaving people trained to feel a certain way (Doctorow 289). Disneyland recreates American culture and turns it into a “mindless thrill” which can be “useful as a substitute for education and, eventually, as a substitute for experience,” (Doctorow 289). The American public is shown to be easily manipulated, and will buy into any simple and merry thing they see. Daniel illustrates that it is these same people who judged his parents and, “What is to be expected of a jury picked however partially from a depraved culture? It is frightening” (Doctorow 197).
In a world without preconceptions, racism and all forms of discrimination would not exist, and the courtrooms in The Trial would be able to serve the public with justice. However, a society without preconceptions can never exist; preconceptions are just that, natural and inherent, beyond our conscious control. Outside of the physical appearance of their respective courtrooms, the alleged “trials” of the Isaacsons and Joseph K. are eerily similar. Neither party receives any justice and both are put to death. Joseph K. is never told what crime he commits and is therefore left helpless to defend himself, while the Isaacson’s are accused of a crime that requires no evidence to convict. In Joseph K.’s society, there is an all powerful, omnipotent and secretive government, where only the most connected and wealthy people had a legitimate chance. Does the description sound familiar?
Joseph K. never goes to jail, however his life is compared to jail, as symbolized through his difficulties and explained further with his meeting with a prison chaplain. His life is completely consumed in the endless and arduous trial and all the repercussions of the trial and of the accusation itself. In the Book of Daniel, it is Daniel and his sister Susan, who are completely consumed by the unending consequences of the trial, and perhaps what was once a false accusation. In Joseph K.’s trial “the most important thing was the counsel’s personal connection with officials of the Court” (Kafka 117). Meanwhile, the trial of the Isaacson’s was “a career making case… everybody did well” (Doctorow 211). The prosecutor became a judge, and the judge had an “intimate professional secret… to be appointed to the Supreme Court,” (Doctorow 185). Doctorow also mentions several other politicians, including General Palmer and Senator Cabot Lodge who both “had their eye on the white house” and attempted to move-up politically during the first Red Scare, after World War I (Doctorow 24). Although Kafka’s work is fiction, it did forecast a rather grave outlook of the near future. When compared to the trial of the Isaacson’s, and the real-life Rosenberg’s, Kafka’s work appears to be frighteningly more accurate than already perceived.
Justice is often much harder to find that one may believe, or expect. Karl Marx illustrates many of the same governmental weaknesses and faults that E.L. Doctorow writes about in The Book of Daniel. Kafka and Sophocles also demonstrate how injustice is often the standard in any particular society through their own literary works. Despite our marvelously portrayed courtrooms, justice is not always served. Instead, it is often only served to those who actually make up the law themselves, the wealthy and ruling classes of a society. Self-serving politicians, societies based upon fear and the strong bipolar nature of opposing classes all contribute to the elusiveness of what every person in this country, and any person that lived in any time period or place deserved. If not justice for all, than justice for whom?
Works Cited
Doctorow, E.L. The Book of Daniel. New York: Plume, 1996.
Kafka, Franz. The Trial. Trans. Edwin Muir. New York: Schocken Books, 1992.
Marx, Karl. Engles, Frederick. The Communist Manifesto. London: Verso, 1998.
Robinson, B.A. Religions of the World. 24 Sept. 2003 http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm>
Sophocles. “Antigone.” The Theban Plays. Trans. E. F. Watling. London: Penguin Books, 1974.
