The Pillars of the Earth question

Two phrases from Marxism come to my mind reading this book: “The mode of production” and “alienation of labour”. It has two polar social structures born of different modes of production: a structure based the sharing of wealth and power – including, up to a point, gender equality (the monastic alternative); and a structure based on the appropriation of power and wealth by men (the primary political form). Within both social structures there are internal contradictions: power is abused by some people in the alternative structure; and by only a minority of people in the primary structure. The overwhelming majority of ordinary people in the society position themselves variably over time in relation to these two “pillars of the earth”. The principal male protagonist is a stone mason who refuses to be alienated from his labour, for which family suffers badly. The pivotal female character is a noble woman who endures degradation and humiliation rather than engage with the leading figure in the masculinist hegemony. The country is in a state of civil war and all the certainties of the previous millennium are in flux. Marxism would predict the transformation of the society’s superstructure in such circumstances. Indeed, it came to pass, though not in this book, that the practice of capitalism took root in the land, but did not acquire a theory to promote itself for several hundred years.