Romanticism in Karl Marx’s Philosophy


Hi Guys and a Happy Thursday to you all! To my family and friends, thanks so much for sending well wishes my way; to my readers, thanks for keeping me in your prayers. I had a great birthday. I start my mornings with feeding my cats, putting on the news (CNN or FOX-whatever mood I may be in) and having a quiet breakfast. I feel like keeping in touch with the world gives me a perspective on issues concerning the rest of the world and the USA, AND aligns me to my values, which is so helpful in my line of analytical work.

I am so pleased and want to congratulate President Trump on his Tax Bill overhaul. This new bill-turned-into-law lays a foundation for budgeting in stipulations and to afford grants and programs for general welfare and organizational infrastructure.  I know news media is begging the question of where the revenue is coming from with all these tax cuts. And I also know they love to hate on the “trickle-down-effect”. However, what news media, liberal or otherwise, fail to understand or ask is, who is going to pay for all the “stuff” we depend on the government for? Sure, the simple answer is the billionaires and corporations, but, I beg the question, with private sector paying for the majority of programs for people, infrastructure, foreign investments, etc., through taxes, how will we plan to achieve US economic growth with indicators such as GDP? Should we instead depend on foreign investments to propel ahead in job growth? Is that the American Dream? My simple answer no.

Liberals and Karl Marx

Liberals love to propagate that they help the general public, and conservatives do not. To me, politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are more Marxist socialists than democratic capitalist, which they hate to recognize was the backbone of America’s economic growth and prosperity in the 19th and 20th century. Industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, J.P Morgan, and Cornelius Vanderbilt not only financed and invested in America’s infrastructure but financed and built universities and welfare programs as well.And as much as capitalists and the “big banks” like to hate on Karl Marx and the socialist/communist movement, their unpopular belief in the trickle-down-effect taking care of all social issues is shortchanged. And one begs the question, are we missing an opportunity for a happy middle here? “In (the) Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels applied the term communism to a final stage of socialism in which all class differences would disappear and humankind would live in harmony. Within this document, ten planks of the Communist Manifesto (were) given.  The Manifesto (is) a philosophical (statement) of the historical (deep-rooted) beliefs that Marx and Engels witnessed in France in the early part of the 19th Century, and then evolving slowing in Germany at the time of its publication…..Marx and Engels claimed to have discovered a scientific (or systematic) approach to socialism based on the laws (or contexts in) history. Marx declared that the course of history was determined by the clash of opposing forces rooted in the economic system and the ownership of property. Just as the feudal system had given way to capitalism, so in time capitalism would give way to socialism. The class struggle of the future would be between the following:
  1. Bourgeoisie – the capitalist employers
  2. Proletariat – the workers

The struggle would end, according to Marx, in the socialist revolution and the attainment of full communism”. (Reference see HERE).

Can We Achieve a Happy Middle?

In my opinion, the basis of his assertions seem a little utopic, because inherently people struggle with unequal distribution of wealth, learned skills, inherent talents, social environment, education, and experiences, so to predict or assume socialism-cum-communism will solve all problems is subjective. Do we want our political system to regulate each human’s experiences, training, and education so they can all somehow contribute to society equally or do we apply merit-based values where the social and economic impact is revered rather than each individual? This is the greatest debate in modern politics and guys, I am sorry, there is no right or easy answer.

Also to note that “at the time in which Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, he saw communists not as a political party, but rather as intellectual revolutionaries that were able to spark government from the OUTSIDE. This is witnessed in the passage in which he notes them as “a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole”.” Marx believed that these advanced (or enlightened) bourgeois (capitalist, not necessarily rich people) would contribute to the already present socialism revolution that was taking place in Europe.


From this textual evidence, I gather that according to the two authors, communism is more of a socialist movement rather than a political system or party that many people assume. It is more of an ideology that begs the questions, can we be self-regulated? Who is responsible for collecting taxes? Does everyone depend on social programs to give equal, non-preferential treatment, medical, social, economical to EVERYONE? In my opinion, we, humans are incapable of this time of utopic society. Instead, we should trust the cyclical cycle of the American political system, where different (or in our case, two parties) come and go and improve on the laws of the land. Read their manifesto (See HERE), and let me know if you differ with my opinion. Happy Reading!!



Leave a Reply