Adherence to virtue within the bourgeoisie of “The Christmas Tree and a Wedding”

In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx makes clear a particular argument regarding the status of the bourgeoisie: “The modern bourgeois society” has further stratified social classes in the contemporary world (34), and it must continue to modernize “the instruments of production,” so as to maintain control over the rest of the world—namely, the proletariat, the working people (38). This contention places at its core the reality of modern production, and advancements in industry. However, even at its core, the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is rather simple. Whereas the proletariat creates capital, in the process of production, it is composed of wage-labourers, whom the bourgeoisie, their bosses, pay the bare minimum to survive and remain at their job (54-5). Thus, the bourgeoisie class maintains its power from the capital produced by those subservient to them (55).



And yet, Fiodor Dostoïevski presents a slight departure from the contentions of Marx by bringing forth a short story in which the effects on social stratifications are far more complex than mere wages and dialectics. Instead, he focuses on the predatory [1] relationship between a man, Julian Mastakovich, and an eleven-year-old girl, a rich heiress whose dowry of hundreds of thousands of roubles is significantly larger than that of her peers (81, 87). He presents their relationship through a memoir on their first encounter, where Julian repeatedly mutters to himself how much her dowry will be worth in a few years’ time (82), while she simply attempts to play with her friend and her dolly in peace (83). While he represents himself not at all charmingly to either the girl or the narrator, his intended goal is accomplished, when he marries the girl five years later and captures her dowry, while she remains nearly in tears.

Indeed, this story presents an idea far scarier than poor working conditions and labor costs: Dostoïevski presents a world seemingly robbed of virtue, where true love—which could have formed with the young boy and girl—is overtaken by an unquenchable thirst for money, on Julian’s behalf. Such a story tells us that the woes of a capitalist system go far beyond those relating to production. Just as the girl’s dowry was enough for Julian to insist that they marry, human existence itself within a system that values currency over people may be enough to corrupt any virtues we attempt to uphold. Production and the labor associated with it may only add to the misery. This story tells us the great secret of the bourgeoisie: High society, luxurious dowries and all, may just be morally bankrupt.

[1] I write predatory not solely with sexual or romantic connotations, given that the 169 years separating this story’s publication from my exposure may have been enough to shift the cultural guidelines around age differences and sexuality. Instead, I attempt to emphasize that Julian manipulates the social sphere surrounding the little girl so as to marry her and capture her dowry, with little regard for her own well being, as evidenced by her “sad and pale” complexion on her wedding day (87).