What do you think?
Rate this book
The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism and Fascism
1928. Shaw, Irish comic dramatist, literary critic, Socialist propagandist and winner of the Nobel prize in 1925, was an ardent socialist, a member of the Fabian Society, and a popular public speaker on behalf of socialism. The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism is his most notable nonfiction work. See other titles by this author available from Kessinger Publishing.
565 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1928
69 people are currently reading
1793 people want to read
About the author
George Bernard Shaw
1,982 books4,122 followersGeorge Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, socialist, and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. Although his first profitable writing was music and literary criticism, in which capacity he wrote many highly articulate pieces of journalism, his main talent was for drama. Over the course of his life he wrote more than 60 plays. Nearly all his plays address prevailing social problems, but each also includes a vein of comedy that makes their stark themes more palatable. In these works Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, health care, and class privilege.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
Want to read
March 21, 2016I didn't buy this for the title (although, what a title). I bought it for the index, which is four pages long and full of interesting stuff. Also because it was the first book in the Pelican imprint.
Also because it's the kind of thing I want to be seen reading on a train.
Also because it's the kind of thing I want to be seen reading on a train.
November 8, 2020
“So what you have to consider is not whether there will be great changes or not (for changes there certainly will be) but what changes you and your friends think, after consideration and discussion, would make the world a better place to live in, and what changes you ought to resist as disastrous to yourself and everyone else.”
What to say about this behemoth? There’s lots of good stuff in here, but you have to wade through quite a bit of Pygmalion-like condescension and out-of-date examples. I think we need a new version. It should be written by a woman, and be called "The Compassionate Man’s Guide to Social Justice."
Still, Shaw made many excellent points. He’s approaching this as a thinker, not as a politician. While plenty of his economic discussions were more in-depth than I had the patience to follow, I think we can all benefit from thinking these things through intellectually to hopefully keep from being carried away by agenda-filled political soundbites.
“I strongly advise you not to wait for a readymade answer from me or anyone else, but to try first to solve the problem for yourself in your own way. For even if you solve it all wrong, you will become not only intensely interested in it, but much better able to understand and appreciate the right solution when it comes along.”
I loved the timely discussion about privatizing the post office, how currently they average out the costs of the very expensive services (like delivering a letter deep into a rural area) with the very cheap, and how a private company would come in with the promise of doing it cheaper, but since they couldn’t do the expensive stuff any cheaper, once they put the post office out of business the services would go down and/or the prices go up.
Personally, I believe some things should not be privatized. I’m old enough to remember when utilities were municipal services and not money-making operations beholden to shareholders instead of to citizens, and I sorely miss both the attitude and the reasonable prices.
Throughout the book, he references subjects currently in the news, like universal basic income and the monetary value of taking care of children.
“The most important and indispensable work of women, that of bearing and rearing children, and keeping house for them, was never paid for directly to the woman but always through the man; and so many foolish people came to forget that it was work at all, and spoke of Man as The Breadwinner. This was nonsense.”
He ends by mentioning that good will come from the people who believe in leaving this world a better place than they found it. Now really, isn’t that something that we should all be able to agree upon?
What to say about this behemoth? There’s lots of good stuff in here, but you have to wade through quite a bit of Pygmalion-like condescension and out-of-date examples. I think we need a new version. It should be written by a woman, and be called "The Compassionate Man’s Guide to Social Justice."
Still, Shaw made many excellent points. He’s approaching this as a thinker, not as a politician. While plenty of his economic discussions were more in-depth than I had the patience to follow, I think we can all benefit from thinking these things through intellectually to hopefully keep from being carried away by agenda-filled political soundbites.
“I strongly advise you not to wait for a readymade answer from me or anyone else, but to try first to solve the problem for yourself in your own way. For even if you solve it all wrong, you will become not only intensely interested in it, but much better able to understand and appreciate the right solution when it comes along.”
I loved the timely discussion about privatizing the post office, how currently they average out the costs of the very expensive services (like delivering a letter deep into a rural area) with the very cheap, and how a private company would come in with the promise of doing it cheaper, but since they couldn’t do the expensive stuff any cheaper, once they put the post office out of business the services would go down and/or the prices go up.
Personally, I believe some things should not be privatized. I’m old enough to remember when utilities were municipal services and not money-making operations beholden to shareholders instead of to citizens, and I sorely miss both the attitude and the reasonable prices.
Throughout the book, he references subjects currently in the news, like universal basic income and the monetary value of taking care of children.
“The most important and indispensable work of women, that of bearing and rearing children, and keeping house for them, was never paid for directly to the woman but always through the man; and so many foolish people came to forget that it was work at all, and spoke of Man as The Breadwinner. This was nonsense.”
He ends by mentioning that good will come from the people who believe in leaving this world a better place than they found it. Now really, isn’t that something that we should all be able to agree upon?
October 9, 2021
Yes, this is probably the most inappropriate (to modern eyes) and most Mansplainingly-bad title ever, and yes, Shaw is a bit of a pompous, preening prick, but the book is a good, informative read, surprisingly light given its subject matter.
It's condescending but not as much as you might think and, at the bottom of it, he does know his stuff and has a point to prove, which he does, mainly by showing us the points that we believe in and take as givens are ridiculous.
There are some gems in it, some great takes on society and the utter crap we believe and put up with that are pertinent to our age (role of the media, our willingness to be distracted from glaring inequality by hours and hours of TV, booze and drugs, the rigged system we go on moaning about but never change). A few sections are now out of date (useful to the historian) but many more are still right on the money.
Well worth a read.
It's condescending but not as much as you might think and, at the bottom of it, he does know his stuff and has a point to prove, which he does, mainly by showing us the points that we believe in and take as givens are ridiculous.
There are some gems in it, some great takes on society and the utter crap we believe and put up with that are pertinent to our age (role of the media, our willingness to be distracted from glaring inequality by hours and hours of TV, booze and drugs, the rigged system we go on moaning about but never change). A few sections are now out of date (useful to the historian) but many more are still right on the money.
Well worth a read.
November 30, 2007
HOw to describe this book without a lecture on Shaw? Absolutely the wittiest and most engaging discussion of economic systems and their real effects ever. Does that sound too dry? Perhaps, but the book is not. And as always, Shaw's real agenda is like that of Dolly Levy: 'money is like manure [and should be] spread around, helping young things grow'. Bless GBS!
Read
April 7, 2015convinced me that socialism wasn't a millenarian dream. smart and convincing. socialism is the best interest of society. read it and then disagree.
June 11, 2010
I read this book so that I could increase my knowledge of communism. I figured reading a communist was a good idea to help with this. This study was very intresting. He never really comes to any concrete points. Over and over again, he makes a statement and then in the next couple of chapters says almost the exact opposite. I will always be glad I read this, and I know I will refer back to it many times in the years to come when I need to pop into the head of a communist. It's always good to understand the people who think oppositely from you. Then you notice more, and are more prepared to make intelligent commnets.
June 27, 2025
I read The Intelligent Woman’s Guide in the winter of 2005, wrapped in a shawl and surrounded by the smell of Nolen Gur, Joynogorer Moya and new books, and every page felt like I was being lovingly scolded by a very opinionated uncle at a dinner table debate. Shaw, true to form, doesn’t just explain socialism, capitalism, Sovietism, and fascism — he interrogates them, ridicules them, flirts with them, and dares you to keep up.
But don’t be fooled by the title. Shaw isn't condescending to women — he's lifting the mask off the world for them, knowing full well that intelligent women (and men) had long been gaslit by political jargon. His tone? Equal parts teacher, showman, and snarky prophet. One moment he’s talking about nationalized bread, and the next he’s skewering the morality of private property with the glee of a man who knows he’s setting the drawing room curtains on fire.
Reading it in 2005 — when the post-Cold War world was already re-learning how slippery ideology can be — I felt strangely... seen. Shaw reminded me that political systems aren’t sacred. They’re tools. And sometimes, bludgeons. His vision of socialism wasn’t starry-eyed or Soviet-stamped — it was deeply human, shot through with wit, class analysis, and fierce hope for a world less cruel.
By the time I shut the book, my tea had gone cold. But my brain? Still boiling.
But don’t be fooled by the title. Shaw isn't condescending to women — he's lifting the mask off the world for them, knowing full well that intelligent women (and men) had long been gaslit by political jargon. His tone? Equal parts teacher, showman, and snarky prophet. One moment he’s talking about nationalized bread, and the next he’s skewering the morality of private property with the glee of a man who knows he’s setting the drawing room curtains on fire.
Reading it in 2005 — when the post-Cold War world was already re-learning how slippery ideology can be — I felt strangely... seen. Shaw reminded me that political systems aren’t sacred. They’re tools. And sometimes, bludgeons. His vision of socialism wasn’t starry-eyed or Soviet-stamped — it was deeply human, shot through with wit, class analysis, and fierce hope for a world less cruel.
By the time I shut the book, my tea had gone cold. But my brain? Still boiling.
August 7, 2013
I've read snippets of this -- it's, of course, very dates, but Shaw was trying to make change in another age from ours. Great historical book, if you're interested in the history of socialism or women's issues.
December 27, 2010
I've included this in my course reader for my economics course critical of current economic practices. It is quite brilliant, on point, and funny.
March 19, 2020
I read this because I knew that, like most people, I didn't really have a clue what socialism really is. Shaw is the perfect solution to that problem
April 28, 2025
The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, written as a long form response to his sister in law for his ideas on socialism. Shaw found most works on socialism not accessible to readers or presenting what he thought was not socialism.
Shaw discovered socialism in the 1880s. It was the work of American writer Henry George who popularized socialist ideas in Britain with his work Progress and Poverty 1879 although George himself was a classical liberal. George argued that private ownership of natural resources like land was illegitimate because a landowner can exact rents simply by owning the land and not improving the land by labor. George proposed a single tax on land on the unearned value of the land. Socialists extended George's critique of rent, which can be traced back to David Ricardo, to capital and profit itself and advocated social ownership of the means of production, land labor and capital.
Shaw was one of the few in 19th century Britain to read and appreciate the work of Karl Marx, but revised Marx's view of capital as exploited surplus labor to capital being spare money, based on a comment of economist Stanley Jevons. Capital itself isn't evil, only exclusive private ownership. Shaw realized that the only people who would read and appreciate Marx's ideas were those in the middle class such as Shaw himself. Shaw became an essential member of the Fabian Society which supported a gradual democratic form of socialism which appealed to the Middle and upper class rather than working class revolutionary socialism. Shaw and the Fabians also embraced the state as necessary for the implementation of socialism, rather than as a temporary weapon of class revolutionaries.
Shaw's own motive for socialism is an aristocratic one: lift up the poor so they can live comfortably too by dividing wealth into equal shares of income. Wealth is meant for enjoying. Freedom is leisure. Being poor sucks, poverty is no virtue and a comfortable life is no sin. Lack of money is the root of evil, as Mark Twain, another socialist, said. Poverty should not be used for punishment, charity is mercy not justice. Shaw recognizes like John Calhoun that in most societies one part of the population lives on the labor of the others which allows for them a higher standard of living and leisure over others. In Shaw's psychology excessive wealth is excessive worry and is dependent on the work of others. Shaw defines liberty as leisure, in terms of the socially necessary labor time one must spend to earn a living. Technology replaces and lowers labor costs which should mean more leisure. But with capitalism private profit is the goal which makes capital in constant motion, continually utilizing labor. The accumulation of capital makes for great increases of wealth but also great inequality towards labor, who must be kept to subsistence and is replaced by technology.
For Shaw it isn't possible to determine the total share of wealth people should have by merit though; as even though people aren't the same and differ in abilities, nobody is best at or does everything. Personal merit in particular matters should triumph over arbitrary economic merit. So why give some a greater or lesser share of the wealth?
Shaw's socialism is to simply to divide wealth into equal shares as proposed in Edward Bellamy’s utopian novel Looking Backward. Anything else is not truly socialism, but either communism or a form of capitalism. Communism is from each according to ability to each according to need. Socialism is from each according to ability to each according to labor. Income would only be distributed to those who work, rather than to those who need. Most economic systems aren't pure communism, socialism or capitalism but have aspects of all. Lighthouses and the police Shaw claims are communist in nature, as we are guaranteed the service as citizens regardless of our individual contribution in society to taxes.
The way socialism would work is that the state would plan industry and eventually own the means of production directly and everybody who works, ideally everybody, receives the same income for various work. With an even distribution of wealth and sharing of the work, the standard of living would be higher on average for everybody, no extreme poverty or wealth, and would rise with technological advance so we can all work less and earn more. It isn't possible to give enough for everybody's wants, but it is mathematically possible to give everybody the same. There is already some equality of incomes within classes and for the same occupations, but not between classes Shaw points out. The reason some occupations earn more is by exploiting the scarcity of ability or to repay the high cost of learning skills. This income would be in money, which you could use to buy what you want. We would work to buy different things, but with the same money because money is a medium of exchange. That would be the answer to the incentive question for whether people will work for the same things and how goods shall be allocated.
The most controversial part of the book is that those who refuse to work or consume more than they produce ought to be put to death painlessly with gas. If this isn’t dark humor or a jest it certainly is ghoulish as even the poorest society manages to care for the sick elderly and poor. This is only a problem for Shaw because he expects everybody to deserve equal incomes.
Shaw's major claim seems to be that it isn't possible or just to determine the share of wealth an individual deserves. It is mathematically possible to evenly divide up wealth into incomes of money. Shaw would agree that people differ in their abilities and how productive they are at a given task, but that no person is best at everything. Why give one person more than another? The equal division of income means that everybody has to do an equal amount of work to earn that income though. Shaw has proposed that harder work have fewer hours or more time off, while easier jobs having more hours and less time off. There is still a need to calculate the value of labor, Shaw just doesn't want to do that by income. The common understanding of socialism is From According to Ability to According to Labor. Some work more and contribute more to the national wealth and get a larger share of the income. Even under communism goods and services are distributed according to need and aren’t exactly the same. The equality is an equal consideration of different needs not equal treatment. Really, the equality achieved under Shaw's socialism the only applies to the consumption side not to management of the means of production and I think Shaw was overly optimistic about democracy to prevent abuses of state authority.
Shaw's scheme only works if the means of production, resources, labor and capital, are all owned by the state. If there is private ownership, unless there is some law some individuals may pay their workers and themselves more or less to increase productivity/profits or decrease costs. State regulation of business would need carrots as well as sticks, so the state would be involved in subsiding business and eventually have to nationalize them. Socialists assumed profit would necessarily decrease over time and industry would consolidate itself but that doesn’t include rent which is independent of productivity and consumerism keeps the capitalist system going. State planned economies were able to manage heavy industries but had trouble producing consumer goods. A fully automated economy could solve some of these difficulties when there isn’t a need for mass labor but would allow different kinds of distribution.
However I do believe a kind of consumption side equality is achievable within a capitalist market system through the social safety net. It would not be redistributionist if equally applied at least at the margin and would be egalitarian in the narrower sense of providing the same floor but not taking down the top. Shaw’s scheme in practice would be like a universal basic income with a job guarantee implemented through existing social security and income information financed preferably by wealth taxes or an MMT backed debt free currency.
Shaw discovered socialism in the 1880s. It was the work of American writer Henry George who popularized socialist ideas in Britain with his work Progress and Poverty 1879 although George himself was a classical liberal. George argued that private ownership of natural resources like land was illegitimate because a landowner can exact rents simply by owning the land and not improving the land by labor. George proposed a single tax on land on the unearned value of the land. Socialists extended George's critique of rent, which can be traced back to David Ricardo, to capital and profit itself and advocated social ownership of the means of production, land labor and capital.
Shaw was one of the few in 19th century Britain to read and appreciate the work of Karl Marx, but revised Marx's view of capital as exploited surplus labor to capital being spare money, based on a comment of economist Stanley Jevons. Capital itself isn't evil, only exclusive private ownership. Shaw realized that the only people who would read and appreciate Marx's ideas were those in the middle class such as Shaw himself. Shaw became an essential member of the Fabian Society which supported a gradual democratic form of socialism which appealed to the Middle and upper class rather than working class revolutionary socialism. Shaw and the Fabians also embraced the state as necessary for the implementation of socialism, rather than as a temporary weapon of class revolutionaries.
Shaw's own motive for socialism is an aristocratic one: lift up the poor so they can live comfortably too by dividing wealth into equal shares of income. Wealth is meant for enjoying. Freedom is leisure. Being poor sucks, poverty is no virtue and a comfortable life is no sin. Lack of money is the root of evil, as Mark Twain, another socialist, said. Poverty should not be used for punishment, charity is mercy not justice. Shaw recognizes like John Calhoun that in most societies one part of the population lives on the labor of the others which allows for them a higher standard of living and leisure over others. In Shaw's psychology excessive wealth is excessive worry and is dependent on the work of others. Shaw defines liberty as leisure, in terms of the socially necessary labor time one must spend to earn a living. Technology replaces and lowers labor costs which should mean more leisure. But with capitalism private profit is the goal which makes capital in constant motion, continually utilizing labor. The accumulation of capital makes for great increases of wealth but also great inequality towards labor, who must be kept to subsistence and is replaced by technology.
For Shaw it isn't possible to determine the total share of wealth people should have by merit though; as even though people aren't the same and differ in abilities, nobody is best at or does everything. Personal merit in particular matters should triumph over arbitrary economic merit. So why give some a greater or lesser share of the wealth?
Shaw's socialism is to simply to divide wealth into equal shares as proposed in Edward Bellamy’s utopian novel Looking Backward. Anything else is not truly socialism, but either communism or a form of capitalism. Communism is from each according to ability to each according to need. Socialism is from each according to ability to each according to labor. Income would only be distributed to those who work, rather than to those who need. Most economic systems aren't pure communism, socialism or capitalism but have aspects of all. Lighthouses and the police Shaw claims are communist in nature, as we are guaranteed the service as citizens regardless of our individual contribution in society to taxes.
The way socialism would work is that the state would plan industry and eventually own the means of production directly and everybody who works, ideally everybody, receives the same income for various work. With an even distribution of wealth and sharing of the work, the standard of living would be higher on average for everybody, no extreme poverty or wealth, and would rise with technological advance so we can all work less and earn more. It isn't possible to give enough for everybody's wants, but it is mathematically possible to give everybody the same. There is already some equality of incomes within classes and for the same occupations, but not between classes Shaw points out. The reason some occupations earn more is by exploiting the scarcity of ability or to repay the high cost of learning skills. This income would be in money, which you could use to buy what you want. We would work to buy different things, but with the same money because money is a medium of exchange. That would be the answer to the incentive question for whether people will work for the same things and how goods shall be allocated.
The most controversial part of the book is that those who refuse to work or consume more than they produce ought to be put to death painlessly with gas. If this isn’t dark humor or a jest it certainly is ghoulish as even the poorest society manages to care for the sick elderly and poor. This is only a problem for Shaw because he expects everybody to deserve equal incomes.
Shaw's major claim seems to be that it isn't possible or just to determine the share of wealth an individual deserves. It is mathematically possible to evenly divide up wealth into incomes of money. Shaw would agree that people differ in their abilities and how productive they are at a given task, but that no person is best at everything. Why give one person more than another? The equal division of income means that everybody has to do an equal amount of work to earn that income though. Shaw has proposed that harder work have fewer hours or more time off, while easier jobs having more hours and less time off. There is still a need to calculate the value of labor, Shaw just doesn't want to do that by income. The common understanding of socialism is From According to Ability to According to Labor. Some work more and contribute more to the national wealth and get a larger share of the income. Even under communism goods and services are distributed according to need and aren’t exactly the same. The equality is an equal consideration of different needs not equal treatment. Really, the equality achieved under Shaw's socialism the only applies to the consumption side not to management of the means of production and I think Shaw was overly optimistic about democracy to prevent abuses of state authority.
Shaw's scheme only works if the means of production, resources, labor and capital, are all owned by the state. If there is private ownership, unless there is some law some individuals may pay their workers and themselves more or less to increase productivity/profits or decrease costs. State regulation of business would need carrots as well as sticks, so the state would be involved in subsiding business and eventually have to nationalize them. Socialists assumed profit would necessarily decrease over time and industry would consolidate itself but that doesn’t include rent which is independent of productivity and consumerism keeps the capitalist system going. State planned economies were able to manage heavy industries but had trouble producing consumer goods. A fully automated economy could solve some of these difficulties when there isn’t a need for mass labor but would allow different kinds of distribution.
However I do believe a kind of consumption side equality is achievable within a capitalist market system through the social safety net. It would not be redistributionist if equally applied at least at the margin and would be egalitarian in the narrower sense of providing the same floor but not taking down the top. Shaw’s scheme in practice would be like a universal basic income with a job guarantee implemented through existing social security and income information financed preferably by wealth taxes or an MMT backed debt free currency.
January 14, 2018
A good book. A little dated, perhaps, and hard work to read, but for a thorough, well-explained insight into modern politics and economics, I'm yet to read better. It's dense because it's so thorough, and whilst I may not agree with some of his arguments, they are easy enough to follow and he uses some excellent (but dated) examples. In the introduction by Polly Toynbee in my edition, she strongly suggests that every household should have a copy. I think every teenage girl should be given a copy and made to read it. She'd find it enlightening.
December 7, 2022
Very interesting and informative. Obviously, I do not agree with every single thing Shaw postulated, especially about the feasibility of most of it, but I enjoyed the book tremendously, especially for a book about politics and money. I feel I also understand certain terms and ideas better now than I did before.
January 22, 2019
Very dated of course but lots of things to think about and other things to read. Shaw was my kind of person. It took me years to read this book. I picked it over and over when I was between other things and was always glad I had.
August 11, 2012
I actually read an original copy from 1904 printed in London! Great economic explanations and very fitting for the time.
March 22, 2014
I - perhaps naïvely - didn't expect this to be quite so patronising!
July 14, 2014
It has to be said, a Man writing a book for women perhaps he should have stuck to writing plays. Still, it's written by Shaw, a Man.
March 17, 2023
"Why INTELLIGENT WOMAN'S GUIDE? Because women are naturally more intelligent than men". G.B.S.
Bernard Shaw was the kind of socialist who could and did simultaneously praise Lenin and Mussolini, and later, after Munich, nominate Adolf Hitler for the Noble Peace Prize. This introduction will try to win you over to Fabian Socialism, whereby the capitalist enemy is worn down through strikes, sit-downs, sit-down strikes and other acts of everyday rebellion. Not a bad notion, but the fact that you don't see any Fabians around these days should give you fair warning as to their analysis of capitalism and recipe for its crumbling. THE INTELLIGENT WOMAN'S GUIDE is like time-capsule of an era when every political option, from soft socialism to fascism seemed feasible. My recommendation of this curio is that it keeps hope alive for a non-capitalist future.
Bernard Shaw was the kind of socialist who could and did simultaneously praise Lenin and Mussolini, and later, after Munich, nominate Adolf Hitler for the Noble Peace Prize. This introduction will try to win you over to Fabian Socialism, whereby the capitalist enemy is worn down through strikes, sit-downs, sit-down strikes and other acts of everyday rebellion. Not a bad notion, but the fact that you don't see any Fabians around these days should give you fair warning as to their analysis of capitalism and recipe for its crumbling. THE INTELLIGENT WOMAN'S GUIDE is like time-capsule of an era when every political option, from soft socialism to fascism seemed feasible. My recommendation of this curio is that it keeps hope alive for a non-capitalist future.
June 2, 2020
No intelligent lady could fall to deeply in love with Fabianism
Read
January 16, 20251
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 12, 2025
One big boring mansplain.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews