Marxism in Waiting for Godot

Samuel Beckett, the most eminent Irish playwright wrote ‘’Waiting for Godot’’ in French in 1949 and then translated it into English in 1954. This play has been performed as a drama of the absurd with astonishing success in Europe, America and the rest of the world in the post second world war era. For this reason, Martin Esslin calls it, “One of the successes of the post-war theatre” (Esslin, Martin, 1980) In this play, the two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, wait expectantly to see a man simply known as Godot, a character who does not make an appearance in the play, despite being the titular character. The play begins with waiting for Godot and ends with waiting for Godot.

Marxism refers to the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis of communism. Marxism introduced ideas such as Dialectical Materialism, Alienation, and Economic Determination.

Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’ has a minimalist setting, with only two discernible visual objects on stage apart from the actors and their props – a road, and a tree. There is an otherworldly alienation in this sparse setting. It could be anywhere, in any country of the world. No visible horizons exist, and no markers of civilization are present. It is this bare bones setting, with a severe dearth of resources that enables us to see Waiting for Godot and the position of their characters in relation to resources. In the barren landscape of these characters, the most essential resource becomes that of food, which is why Estragon greedily seeks the leftover bones of Pozzo’s chicken. Therefore, within this social structure, Vladimir and Estragon are treated as outcasts, and have very few resources, especially compared to Pozzo, who has food, better clothing, land, and tragically so – a slave of his own in the form of Lucky. Both Vladimir and Estragon see themselves lower in the hierarchy of social positions, vis-à-vis Pozzo, as they see him and his slave with a sense of curiosity and adoration. Within this social system, if the base of resources were food, clothing and shelter, it is Pozzo who possesses these essential items. It is on this base that the superstructure of relations is built. The control over resources places Pozzo at a higher level in the hierarchy of class, giving him the power to commodify Lucky and treat him as a slave, and treat Vladimir and Estragon as outcasts.

The relationship between Pozzo and Lucky is one of the most important socio-political themes in the depiction of Master-Slave relationships, shedding light on class relations and symbolizing economic exploitation. Lucky, who is to be sold at the fair, is a human being reduced to a commodity; he can easily be seen as an oppressed worker, a part of the exploited and dehumanized proletariat. His futile task is lugging a suitcase filled with sand, and when his usefulness has diminished he is deemed as expendable as any replaceable part of a machine. Pozzo- a member of the landowning class, is clearly an effete and pretentious member of the bourgeoisie, whose well-being and physical comforts (the pipe, the stool, the chicken) depend on the unrelenting subjugation of his burden-bearing servant.

The relationship between Lucky and Pozzo, despite their skewed power division, is that of interdependence. One can draw parallels with the relationship they share, and the Marxist base and superstructure- with Lucky representing the base and Pozzo representing the superstructure. Pozzo and Lucky create a metaphor of society, not as it is but as the tramps might see it, with the social structure reduced to an essential distinction between master and slave. Without Lucky, Pozzo cannot move forward, sit down to eat or get up. Lucky cannot move either, except in response to Pozzo’s shouted orders and whip-cracks. There is a shift in this dynamic of power in act 2, when Pozzo becomes blind, and subsequently helpless. Rather than driving Lucky as he did earlier, he is now pathetically dragged along by him. From a position of omnipotence and strength and confidence, he is now at the mercy of the people around him.

One can also analyze the play using the theory of alienation, which is one of the central concepts of Marxism. Marx argues that in a society based on capitalism, alienated labor produces an alienated self. An individual is no longer a whole human being, and is unable to establish full human relationships with other workers who are in a situation much like his own. This is the human meaning of capitalism for Marx: people cut off from themselves, others and work.

The theory of alienation, when analyzed and applied in context to Beckett's Waiting for Godot, becomes one of its major themes. The relationship between two major characters in the play – Lucky and Pozzo, is the perfect example.

When we are introduced to Pozzo, he is written and is to be portrayed as a man of opulence in a land of paupers, someone who is uncaring, ruthless and self-obsessed, a brilliantly drawn caricature of the capitalist master. Lucky, on the other hand, is his slave, the worker laboring away for the master in an inhuman condition, tied up with a leash, dragged around and exploited. Lucky exhibits all the symptoms of alienation. The laborious tasks which Lucky is forced to perform, which include carrying a basket of food, wine and other items of luxury, has probability stripped him of any sense of passion, creativity and liveliness. It must also be noted that he has been subjected to torture and exploitation, of both the mental and physical kind. The master has dehumanized the slave to such an extent in fact, that he acts and even thinks only when told to, and has become a fraction of his former self, with very little or no hope for salvation. It can be assumed that the world of Waiting for Godot, while not set in any particular time period, is what it is, as a consequence of the misadventures of what may be our own, capitalist, highly militarized, post industrialized world.

Lucky’s muteness is also an important symbol in the play, representing the working class’s lack of a voice. The only time Lucky speaks in the entire play is during an intense monologue which is an unfinished question beginning with a postulate of the existence of a personal God and ending with the image of an empty, fossilized skull. Pozzo puts an end to this torrent of words by taking off Lucky’s bowler hat and saying, “There’s an end to his thinking!’’.

The inhuman actions and thought of all major characters then, including Vladimir and Estragon,  have been affected by the actions of these capitalist structures, going on only to prove Marx's worst fears of a society which has lost its essence and has been alienated from its Humane spirit.