OK, so what I know of Marxist theory is that the labor required to produce a commodity is the only true measure of that commodities value, a prophet made above that value is surplus in the pockets of the capitalist. With increase competition within the capitalist market, prices, and therefore wages, drop. Marx's prediction was that wages would decline to starvation levels and capitalists would be driven out of business. A divide would open and increase between the classes until the proletariat (poor working class) would then revolt and seize control of the state economy.
I'm sure there is much more to it than that, please enlighten me as I have not studied the subject (Didn't Marx have an idealistic communist vision of a Utopian society?).
I can see that O'Connor's The Displaced Person can be viewed through this lens, even if I don't fully understand Marxism. I gap exists between these classes in her story, though I'm not sure how large. Mrs. McIntyre owns property and a home where her employees own nothing, but the Judge has left her nothing else and Mrs. McIntyre reminds us:
I've been running this place for thirty years. . .and always just barely making
it. People think you're made of money. I have the taxes to
pay. I have the insurance to keep up. I have the repair bills.
I have the feed bills.
And yet she keeps buying tractor equipment. On the other hand, Sulk is stealing her chickens, he may be on the brink of starvation. At any rate, Mr. Guizac, who arrives, destitute, poses the immediate threat. First to the Shortley's (interestingly Mrs. Shortley seems to be a bit of a manager) always telling the black men, those she invisions are beneath her, what to do. Next he poses a threat to Mrs. McIntyre. I don't mean an actual threat, though he may be, but he seems to be more of one perceived as a threat by the others. Could he take over the farm? I'd see him leaving before that was possible, but it is interesting that when they get rid of him, the farm is abandoned or fails. That leaves room for the argument that he did take over and would have further. So then, did the proletariat destroy the capitalist or the capitalist destroy the proletariat?
I also wonder about a post colonialist perspective being applied to this story as it would surely work. I see the Post colonial attitude appear in Mrs. Shortley when she says things like: "Over here it's more advanced than where they come from" (p.290). She also believes their religion is old, not reformed and primitive. However, she does not speak with imperialistic thought, she doesn't want to go to Europe and take over. Her thought is one of protection (what exactly woud that be called?). Remember she was like the "Giant wife of the Countryside, come out at some sign of danger to see what the trouble was" (p.285).