Thanks for the share; an interesting read!
I don't know if this is a hot take but I think the narrative of the film, even though in many ways is more simplistic, is better than the original written story from what I remember of it.
I think the original story, coming from a society's popularised literature that gives the impression of minimising the agency of the proleteriat class and has heaps of apologism for the bourgoisie (the most you get is Dickens' exotica of poverty, and liberal bourgoisie concepts of women's emancipation, ie would like a bigger piece of the imperialist pie) - both-sides the victim (the creature/monster).
I think Western literature and media in generally is rife with a story technique where if you just nominally show the "bad" thing then that itself can be considered a criticism (eg the Godfather nominally could be considered a criticism of organise crime, when all the narrative techniques such as what is centred, what isn't historicised, what is rewarded etc would all suggest otherwise and thereby giving praise to the traits of the bourgoisie considered worthy. [I am brought up in this liberal world, I am flawed and therefore still like the movie]).
In my opinion it is one of the easier arguments to make that the workers of the west used the Soviet Union as leverage of threat of domestic revolution to gain the concessions they did for the welfare state, and thereby forced capitalists to invest in "human capital" that allowed massive upskilling of the work force and unlock the tech ladder as we know it today. And when the USSR collapsed (and potentially you could even use the fall of the Berlin wall) that leverage was lost and thereby the losing of concessions gained leading to the state of affairs as we know it now. It puts the like of Stalin and Lenin head and shoulders over any known Western leader.