You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mollycrwillis 's review for:
The Communist Manifesto
by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels
Quite hilarious to discuss this text in my Literature and Capitalism class on the very same day the Trump administration orders a federal funding freeze, specifically condemning the use of Federal resources to “advance Marxist equity.” I need someone to record Trump attempting to define Marxist equity. I don’t think Trump has even read this. You could probably give it a different name, put it on his desk, and he’d love it. You know, if he had someone to explain it to him.
Marx’s admiration for capitalism is blatant. While he clearly doesn’t love it, he is impressed by it, in awe of its sheer productive power. His problem lies in its inequality, the system it perpetuates where the few exploit the many.
Honestly, Marx is a bigger fan of democracy than Trump is. I mean, Trump is building an oligarchy; meanwhile, Marx called the Proletarian revolution a movement of the “immense majority in favor of the immense majority.”
To be clear, I am not calling for a violent revolution (or am I?) (THAT’S A JOKE, FBI!). Marx was wrong because he was far too optimistic about class solidarity and the shared interests of exploited people. Do I agree that there is no such thing as liberty without economic liberty? Duh. Do I think communism is inevitable and will naturally be ushered in after the collapse of capitalism? A girl can dream. JOKE, FBI.
To be even clearer, I am not a communist. I think historical materialism is an academically valid and fruitful lens through which to examine literature and modern society. Issues arise when people use Marxism and Communism as buzzwords to incite panic without taking the time to truly understand them. It’s not new to trot out theoretical praise of this text while simultaneously condemning/questioning the actual implementation of its ideas. I’m not reinventing the wheel here. I’m just a girl standing in front of a boy, asking for a 90% tax bracket. Come home, FDR. The kids miss you. Again, joking. I will take the tax bracket, though.
Marx’s admiration for capitalism is blatant. While he clearly doesn’t love it, he is impressed by it, in awe of its sheer productive power. His problem lies in its inequality, the system it perpetuates where the few exploit the many.
Honestly, Marx is a bigger fan of democracy than Trump is. I mean, Trump is building an oligarchy; meanwhile, Marx called the Proletarian revolution a movement of the “immense majority in favor of the immense majority.”
To be clear, I am not calling for a violent revolution (or am I?) (THAT’S A JOKE, FBI!). Marx was wrong because he was far too optimistic about class solidarity and the shared interests of exploited people. Do I agree that there is no such thing as liberty without economic liberty? Duh. Do I think communism is inevitable and will naturally be ushered in after the collapse of capitalism? A girl can dream. JOKE, FBI.
To be even clearer, I am not a communist. I think historical materialism is an academically valid and fruitful lens through which to examine literature and modern society. Issues arise when people use Marxism and Communism as buzzwords to incite panic without taking the time to truly understand them. It’s not new to trot out theoretical praise of this text while simultaneously condemning/questioning the actual implementation of its ideas. I’m not reinventing the wheel here. I’m just a girl standing in front of a boy, asking for a 90% tax bracket. Come home, FDR. The kids miss you. Again, joking. I will take the tax bracket, though.