Hawthorne and Marx: The Fault of Agreement and Passage in Utopian Society: The Birthmark By Andrew Schenkel In the

essence of humanities fault belies the request of tendencies to find the perfection of human nature. Such is the nature of science and innovation in Hawthornes, The Birthmark, in the rejection of satisfaction for adjusting or eliminating the natural state of deterministic conflict in the marriage between innovation and utopia. In as much as innovation remains the mortal enemy of Utopia, the exemplified perfection of virtue and peaceful appeasement to the measure of comfort and flawless appearance; that is, the appearance of perfection sought by innovators of all kinds. The measures, according to Marx, relinquish their grasp at the very want to eliminate the conflict itself. Marx, would by no end, therefore, in the confrontment of Engles, seek not to adjust the tendencies of conflict, but to understand that they are, in no doubt, married. The spawn of innovation and the gentrification of perfection are not achievable, according to Marx. They are, however, attempted in the confines of communities, much in the same that the construct of Hawthorne is the essence of community. In the observance of these measures, Hawthorne and Marx, with the same era, although it should be noted that, in small measure, Hawthorne was published in this regard prior to Marx and Engels, that the innovations application to the virtues of the psychologically endeavored class, that which receives uncompensate of love and affection, and the devaluation based on the standard of outward life and appearance, cannot even misadjust to the breathe of perfection and utopia without the death of virtue itself. These small chapters of Hawthorne (The Birthmark) and Marx and Engels both suggest five absolute truths in an era of industrial efficiency and innovation. First, the innovation will be the death of virtue even after the psychological exactment of precursory judgment of the very nature of imperfection that has always abided the class that imbedded the virtuous integrity and, in the figure of humanistic determination, prevented the onslaught of innovation, even to the figure of psychological despair as a lack of perfect production (see that the application of technology in the era, as well as the collective works and symbolism of Hawthorne define the virtuous figure as an indication of the wants and needs of workers, and complacency of the working class, as well as its rejection and prevention of innovation at large). Second, that the eventual application of technology, following a period of psychological disgrace at the remarks and manner of the ruling class, will stem the competitive nature of workers to accept and want the technology which will eliminate the virtues of individuality. Third, that the technology, as per the proof of the era, will in fact harm, if not kill both the virtue and satisfaction of both classes, only in that brief intellectual stimulation of the acknowledgement of innovative success will the ruling elite see that they are, in fact, elite to the worker, while having lost their standing on that which they have always felt their satisfaction. Fourth, that women, and the virtues of home wivery will be put to rest and will become expendable at the hand and application of modern technology. And, finally, as is the compensate of this paper, that, as a whole, the unique tendencies towards utopia, and the perfection, in either efficiency or communistic satisfaction, will undoubtedly become insufficient expressions of the want for a perfection. In the end of both chapters, Hawthorne and Marx and Engels, comes the logical failure, and the conclusion that, in fact, in the attainment of wisdom and knowledge,

the perfection of their ideology, that utopian social scientist have render themselves useless, only to the comfort of their own philosophical ends and understanding. This simultaneous discourse, worlds apart, follows the inevitable question that provoked Hawthornes general disdain at the accompaniment of contemporaries. In fact, the publication the Birthmark precedes the Manifesto by five or so years, and, in sequence, the Manifesto uses as reference, specifically acknowledges both American Communist colonies, and, effectually, the colonialized setting that Hawthornes work predominates. To this end, the simultaneous work, with no proof or otherwise within my current grasp, on to discover the publication dates, which give Hawthorne the credit of fictional prose, both authors describe the same ends of utopian communistic values based on their unwillingness to participate in outside reality. It is of note, in this instance, that the entirety of Hawthornes, The Birthmark, takes place inside the walls of a unique and strange separated home, with the confines split between social science and simple living. The dichotomy of comparative analysis leaves very little to reject the premise that Hawthorne and Marx and Engels agree on the terms, characteristics, and determinant factors that lead to the application of social science and or technologically (dichotomy) on the establishment of virtue loving individuals. In the absence of want of political power is want of individuality. Perhaps, though, if not only by date, Hawthorne even holds the upper hand in Marx court, whereby the moral tale defines the destructive nature and the loss the of the ruling power in want of perfection in the realm of tech application. No less that they agree on the outcome, Hawthorne also acknowledges the part and psychology of the worker who readily accepts the imperfection of individuality, albiet perhaps of non-conventional attributes, and leans on the submissive application of innovation in stronger tone than would Marx. Furthermore, while agreeing on the pending loss at the exploitation of the working class, Hawthorne acknowledges the wisdom and craft of the ruling class as a potential good, that contains the properties of evil within it. An unusual proof of the function that Marx would no doubt agree with Hawthornes perspective given their similar digression and outcome, judgment of the idealized movements for perfection. In this manner, as pure objectivity of history and influence, it can be said that Marx is does not necessarily combine the nature of technology with the nature of the ruling class, only that the ruling class applies it without fair method. In that sense, the revolution, so discussed, will usurp the power of the machinery, while maintaining the forces of inevitable failure at the utopias hands of those new to power seeking to uphold the existence of which the innovation will be applied. As such, we can see the rightful footnote to these contemporary, counterpart chapters, being the steady unchanging reality of the ruling class, as stipulated by Marx and Appleby; and Hawthorne. The inevitability of ruling powers to retain their process and the rights, thereof, to act in accordance with the advantages of Adams at the expense of increasing capital and holdings and the force of capitalist ventures within the society itself; this is the inevitability provoked in all studies of economy. But, the difference is to what end, and in what measure this will bring. To Hawthorne, the measure seems to be either the prevention of advancement, or the inevitable failure in application of technology. Not that he was wrong, but helped to describe the tendencies that characterized almost 400 years of stagnation in the technological world.

In this sense, we can see Marx, Englels and Hawthorne, together, within the span of five years, which would not eliminate the possibility of having written these works simultaneously, while across the living ocean, agree that the working class will resist any advancement that moves to diminish its rights to a content life. But, in the honesty of virtue, it should be acknowledged that the want of virtue will successfully bring the inevitability of utopian failure. It therefore, must be acknowledged in the work of Marx that expansion of principles is at the expense of virtue, but to the value of increased workers in the establishment of revolutionary classes. As it would acknowledged in the chapters following the chapter at hand, attending to the German principles of productivity, within the Manifesto. It should also be said that, while entirely unexplained in both, that the absence of technology does, in fact, create or endure the presence of conflict; a conflict that reaches disagreement on the point of technological advancement. In fact, though, to abrupt Marx and Engels, technology brought on capitalistic advancement, and therefore, the conflict itself cannot be separated from the catalyst of the era. In that productivity would be lost, and the workers themselves starve at the hands of lacking innovation. In presupposition, technology, as a proof here, does not change the reality, but only proves to perhaps solve the conflict, only as prefaced by decreased standards of living. In that measure, these separate chapters hold a unique measure of importance in attempting to explain, as does Hawthorne as well in the Artist and the Beautiful, the absolute characteristics that will be changed and unchanged in technological advancement, and the challenges faced by philosophy and the ruling elites at which point the technology proves to eliminate conflict, for better or worse. To this end, I relinquish the subject and place it as published. Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Birthmark. 1843. Marx and Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Chapter: III. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. 1848.