Capitalism Ideas in Cherry Orchard and Death of a Salesman

This essay compares and contrasts these plays in terms of the social critique they offer. They both criticise the socio-economic structures of their societies for offering empty dreams to workers and skewing definitions of success and happiness, when in reality, their poverty is permanent most of the time. The Cherry Orchard, however, offers a more positive regard for dreamers, who do something about their dreams rather than passively waiting for it to come true, and it also respects the weaknesses of the human race for folly and insecurity as an essential part of their being.Capitalism somehow supports economic equality because of the economic opportunities it can offer to the poor and working classes of society. At the beginning of the twentieth century, feudalism is transitioning to capitalism in Russia. The Cherry Orchard exposes changes in the social class structure, where the defeat of the cultured elite is prominent (Brand and Moe, 2009, p. 1). Chekhov describes Madame Ranevskaya’s household as a representation of the past, in particular, the passing of the semifeudal existence of Russian landowners on their country estates (Buckner, 2010, p. 2). Ranevskaya stands for the weakening Russian aristocracy, which has declined after centuries of being accustomed to an extravagant lifestyle. The aristocrats are used to benign power, and soon, the semi-educated, but determined, middle-class usurped their economic status. Lopakhin is the son of a serf in Ranevskaya’s orchard, but because of his perseverance, which aristocrats seldom had, he became wealthy and powerful. He represents the working class, having fruitfully climbed the social ladder. Despite his success, he has developed learned inferiority and believes that he will always be a lower-class individual: …youll find Im still a peasant down to the marrow of my bones (Chekhov, 1904, Act 1). He is paradoxically rich on the outside, but poor in