The critique seems well-researched, but I don't think it holds up to the text. If there is any division in the village, it is not an economic one, it is a sexual one. The patriarchy of the village structure is very apparant in the organization of the lottery. The only woman allowed to take an active role is Mrs. Dunbar, who is drawing only in proxy for her wounded husband. Only when the patriarchal initial division of the lottery is completed, do women even get the illusion of deciding their own fate. One thing the critique pegs correctly, I think, is that Tessie Hutchinson is emblematic of what the lottery is trying to suppress. It seems clear, however, that the lottery is meant to represent society's repression of women. The critique calls out the many rebellious acts of Tessie, many of which are seemingly done unconsciously. The lottery, then, by selecting this social malcontent, shows how the group acts to suppress those individualistic elements within it that threaten the status quo.

Jackson could have made the chosen character a rebellious teen boy, a bratty child, an obstinant head of a household. She chose, however, to represent the oppressed member of this society as an outspoken woman. I do not think she made this choice idly. If this were a capitalistic critique, I think her selection of the victim would have been more clear in that regard.

I remember reading "The Lottery" in 7th grade, which would have made me 12 or 13. It did have an impact on me, but mostly in that I thought it was a great example of the short story form. It accomplishes more in a few words, with characters and setting that are nearly non-existant they are so sparse, than many full-length novels do. That economy of form is what resonated most with me.