The text is an excerpt from Karl Marx‘s Critique of the Gotha Programme written in 1875. He critiques the vagueness of certain terms and the program’s reliance on the state for the implementation of socialist measures. Marx argues that the program falls short of true socialist principles and points out the contradictions between its goals and the reality of the existing state and society. Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, and political theorist. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers in history, laying the foundation for modern socialism and communism.
Critique of the Gotha Programme | Summary & Analysis
The text opens with a letter written by Karl Marx and he discusses his critical marginal notes on the Unity Programme. He plans to share these notes with Geib, Auer, Bebel, and Liebknecht for examination. Marx explains that he and Engels will publish a statement after the Unity Congress to clarify that their position is distant from the said programme and that they are not associated with it. He expresses concern about false beliefs that he secretly guides the German Social-Democratic Workers Party’s movement. Marx argues against the programme of principles, believing that real movement is more important. He also criticizes the way the Lassallean leaders were included in the process. In addition, Marx mentions the delayed printing of the French edition of Capital and inquires about the delivery of previous parts to a recipient named Bernhard Becker.
Critique of the Gotha Programme | Summary, Section I
Karl Marx criticizes a paragraph from a socialist program, particularly the Unity Programme. The paragraph starts by stating that labor is the source of all wealth and culture. Marx disagrees, arguing that nature is also a source of use values that contribute to material wealth. He further discusses how labor becomes the source of use values and wealth when humans interact with nature as owners of the means of production. Marx points out that laborers who do not own the means of production become dependent on those who do, leading to a system of exploitation. Marx then criticizes the paragraph’s claim that useful labor is only possible in society. He finds the argument redundant and compares it to the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He emphasizes that useful labor can exist even in simple societies, not just in modern ones.
Regarding the conclusion that the proceeds of labor belong undiminished to all members of society, Marx sees it as a hollow phrase open to various interpretations by proponents of different social orders. He argues that the paragraph should have provided concrete evidence of how the capitalist society perpetuates poverty and wealth instead of using general phrases about labor and society. Marx argues that the sentence mentioning ‘monopoly of the instruments of labor’ is incorrect in the revised edition because it fails to acknowledge that both capitalists and landowners hold this monopoly. He believes the revision was made to avoid attacking landowners, as Lassalle did not criticize them in his arguments against capitalism. Regarding the phrase ‘proceeds of labor,’ Marx finds it ambiguous and without a clear economic meaning. He questions whether it refers to the product of labor or the value added by labor to the means of production consumed. He criticizes the concept of ‘fair distribution,’ pointing out that different people have varied notions of fairness. He argues that economic relations should be regulated by economic necessities, not legal conceptions.
Marx then explains the concept of distribution in a communist society, where the means of production are held in common. Each producer receives back from society what they have contributed in terms of labor. The social working day is divided among all the laborers, and they receive an equal amount of labor’s product in return. He emphasizes that in the initial phase of communist society, there will still be some inequality, but as the society develops, these inequalities will diminish. Marx asserts that the ultimate goal of a higher phase of communist society is to achieve the principle of ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’ He concludes by criticizing the emphasis on distribution in the socialist program, arguing that distribution is a consequence of the mode of production. Instead, he urges a focus on understanding the mode of production itself to bring about true social change.
Marx highlights how Lassalle alters the original statement :
‘The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves’ to ‘The working class has to emancipate labor.’
He criticizes this change, as it becomes unclear what exactly is meant by ’emancipating labor.’ Furthermore, Marx points out the contradiction in Lassalle’s claim that all other classes, including the bourgeoisie and feudal lords, form one reactionary mass relative to the working class. He emphasizes that the Communist Manifesto views the bourgeoisie as a revolutionary class relative to the feudal lords and lower middle class. Marx disapproves of Lassalle’s narrow national standpoint in the workers’ movement and his lack of emphasis on international solidarity.
Regarding the German Workers’ party, Marx criticizes its reduction of internationalism to the consciousness of achieving ‘the international brotherhood of peoples,’ without emphasizing the international functions of the German working class. He argues that this falls short even compared to the Free Trade party, which at least takes action to make trade international. Marx clarifies that the international activity of the working class does not solely depend on the existence of the International Working Men’s Association. He considers the attempt to create such an organization as a significant historical success, but he acknowledges that its form changed after the fall of the Paris Commune.
Critique of the Gotha Programme | Summary, Section II
Karl Marx further criticizes the German workers’ party program for embracing Lassalle’s ideas and the so-called ‘iron law of wages.’ He points out that Lassalle’s law of wages is actually based on the Malthusian theory of population, which suggests that poverty is inevitable and cannot be eliminated, even under socialism. Marx emphasizes that the party’s understanding of wages has evolved scientifically, recognizing that wages are not the value of labor but rather the value of labor power. He explains that the worker is allowed to work for their subsistence only by working a certain amount of unpaid labor for the capitalist. The system of wage labor is seen as a form of slavery, where the capitalist profits from the surplus labor of the worker.
Marx is critical of the party’s regression to Lassalle’s dogma, despite the progress made in understanding the nature of wages and exploitation. Furthermore, Marx condemns the party’s compromise program, pointing out its lack of conscience and levity in embracing outdated ideas. He argues that instead of vaguely advocating the elimination of social and political inequality, the program should have emphasized the abolition of class distinctions, which naturally leads to the disappearance of all forms of inequality. Marx expresses disappointment with the party’s program, which includes questionable elements influenced by Lassalle’s ideas, rather than adopting a more scientifically grounded and revolutionary approach to the working class struggle.
Critique of the Gotha Programme | Summary, Section III
Karl Marx criticizes the German Workers’ party program for its approach to the social question and the solution it proposes. He points out that the program uses vague phrases like ‘paving the way’ and ‘the social question’ instead of addressing the actual class struggle and revolutionary transformation of society. Marx expresses his disapproval of the idea that the ‘socialist organization of the total labor’ can simply arise from state aid given to producers’ co-operative societies. He sees this as a naive and unrealistic belief, comparing it to Lassalle’s fanciful thinking. Furthermore, Marx highlights the problematic nature of using the term ‘toiling people’ under the democratic control of the ‘toiling people.’ He points out that the majority of the toiling people in Germany consists of peasants, not proletarians, and that the concept of ‘control by the rule of the people of the toiling people’ lacks clarity and coherence.
Marx emphasizes that the desire of the workers to establish conditions for co-operative production on a social scale is tied to their aim of revolutionizing the current conditions of production, not merely creating co-operative societies with state aid. He asserts that true co-operative societies of value should be independent creations of the workers, not under the influence or control of governments or the bourgeoisie. Overall, Marx criticizes the program for taking a retrograde step from a class movement to a sectarian movement and for its lack of a comprehensive and revolutionary approach to addressing the social question and the working class struggle.
Critique of the Gotha Programme | Summary, Section IV
In this section, Karl Marx critiques the democratic section of the German Workers’ party program. He begins by questioning the meaning of the ‘free state’ that the program strives for, emphasizing that the workers aim to make the state subordinate to society, not to set it free. Marx believes that the program treats the state as an independent entity with its own intellectual and ethical bases, rather than acknowledging its dependence on the existing capitalist society. Marx further criticizes the program’s use of vague and misplaced terms, such as ‘present-day state’ and ‘present-day society,’ which he considers to be fictional constructs. He argues that all states in civilized countries are based on modern bourgeois society and share essential characteristics. Thus, the program should address the political transition period during the revolutionary transformation from capitalist to communist society and the role of the state during that period. He then examines specific demands of the program related to the economic and intellectual bases of the state. Marx finds that many of these demands, such as a progressive income tax, equal elementary education, compulsory school attendance, and free instruction, have either already been realized in certain countries or are not meaningful within the context of the existing Prusso-German Empire.
Marx objects to the idea of ‘elementary education by the state,’ believing that the state should not be the educator of the people, and that both government and church should be excluded from influencing the school. He also points out the compromised nature of the program, reflecting a servile belief in the state and a democratic belief in miracles, which are both distant from true socialism. Lastly, Marx mentions ‘freedom of science’ and ‘freedom of conscience,’ noting that these principles should be upheld, but they need to be contextualized within the struggle of the Kulturkampf (cultural struggle) taking place in Germany at that time. He suggests that the Workers’ party should go beyond bourgeois-level thinking and address the issue of religious freedom of conscience in a more comprehensive manner.
Critique of the Gotha Programme | Background & Context
To understand Karl Marx and his ideas, it’s essential to examine the socio-historical context in which he lived and worked. Marx was a German philosopher, economist, and political theorist who lived from 1818 to 1883. His ideas are primarily associated with Marxism, a socio-economic and political theory that has had a profound impact on the modern world.
Marx was born during the early phases of the Industrial Revolution, when modern industry was growing and great technological developments were occurring. Agrarian and craft-based economies gave way to industrialized and urbanized ones as a result of the Industrial Revolution in society. The working class (proletariat) emerged, urbanization accelerated, and the gap between the working class and the capitalist bourgeoisie widened. In Europe, capitalism became the preeminent economic system during the 19th century. Marx saw firsthand how the capitalist owners of the means of production exploited the working class. Marx’s critique of capitalist society and the innate class struggle it entails was spurred by this obvious class gap and the challenging working circumstances. Marx’s ideas were shaped by his observations of the social and economic conditions of his time. He sought to understand the underlying mechanisms of capitalist society and the potential for revolutionary change through the collective action of the working class
Besides these historical developments, Marx was deeply influenced by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s dialectical method. Hegel’s dialectics emphasized the idea that history is shaped by contradictions and conflicts between opposing forces, which lead to societal progress and change. Marx adapted Hegelian dialectics to analyze historical materialism, viewing history as a series of class struggles and economic developments. This formed the basis of his socialist ideas. Marx’s theories have since become foundational for socialist and communist movements worldwide, shaping the course of history and influencing debates on class struggle, social justice, and economic inequality.
Karl Marx wrote the specific piece in 1875 and it is known as his critique of the Gotha Programme. The German Social Democratic Party (SDP), whose unity conference was held in Gotha, Germany, accepted the Gotha Programme as its draft platform. The Eisenachers, who adhered to the theories of Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, and the Lassalleans, who adhered to the theories of Ferdinand Lassalle, were two groups within the German socialist movement that the Gotha Congress sought to reunite. These two groups disagreed on important matters and had distinct ideologies on socialism. The Lassalleans were advocating a state-centered approach to socialism, emphasizing the role of state intervention and the implementation of state-coordinated cooperative systems to improve the workers’ conditions. Lassalle’s ideas were seen by Marx and Engels as reformist and insufficiently revolutionary. Marx believed that Lassalle’s focus on state aid and cooperative societies did not address the fundamental issues of class struggle and capitalist exploitation. Marx’s critique sought to highlight the limitations of Lassalle’s approach and reaffirm his own revolutionary and class-based understanding of socialism.
Marx’s ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’ is still regarded as a key piece of Marxist literature because it demonstrates how he differs theoretically from reformist socialist theories and emphasizes his idea of a revolutionary route leading to socialism and communism. It continues to be pertinent in arguments concerning the characteristics of socialism, the function of the state, and the difficulties in establishing a society without classes.
