Marxism in Pride and Prejudice: Why Austen just misses the Marx

I recently read a review of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice that explored the major inconsistencies in her novel.

The reviewer notes how the more materialistic characters (Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Wickham, and Mr. Collins) are portrayed negatively, while more virtue-centered characters (Elizabeth, Mr. Darcy, Jane, Mr. Bingley) are held as ideal. The most virtuous sisters are rewarded, however, not by just true love but also fantastic wealth, which degrades Austen’s commentary against materialism.

Yet, the marriages of Elizabeth, Jane, Charlotte, and Lydia all show how the quest for materialistic gain rather than romance was the most important factor in their marriages. Austen comments on problems within the system, but she ultimately offers no alternative.

As the reviewer notes, there is a push and pull throughout the novel between what is considered ideal and the reality of the times. Love is touted as the only noble reason to marry, but not all the characters have the freedom to make that choice.

Although Lydia went off with Wickham on a passionate impulse, her elopement is, of course, dealt with on material rather than emotional terms as the letter sent by the mediating Mr. Gardner implies:

All that is required of you is, to assure to your daughter, by settlement, her equal share of the five thousand ponds, secured among your children after the decease of yourself and my sister; and, moreover, to enter into an engagement of allowing her, during your life, one hundred pounds per annum. (267) – Pride and Prejudice

Austen tries to buck the materialistic and matrimony driven culture of the time, but her version of a happy ending is still dependent on Elizabeth and Jane earning good financial matches. This is where she misses being a true Marxist critic of her society. In the end, the predominating value of materialism still wins out.