40:50 "communist society... as it emerges from capitalist society... still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from who's womb it emerges" Bad faith detractors always ask for some stellar example of communism. Understand this quote and the degree which socialism is being combated and maligned in every way across the globe.
That's not what this is talking about, this is referring to Bourgeois Right/Law not elements such as commodity production, value/money or wage labour which are non existent in communism or it simply isn't communism but a DotP if that
@@Saoirse-dm7ut I think the commentor wasn't implying communism as in the higher phase, but communist states in the transitory phase to communism (socialism). So, assuming he meant socialism and the DOTP, bourgeois elements will take a while to shake off of society.
Timestamps Foreword: 2:06 Marx To Bracke: 5:00 Engels To Bebel: 8:34 Part 1: 29:02 Part 2: 54:21 Part 3: 58:57 Part 4: 1:01:41 Appendix: 1:11:32 End: 1:14:09
That’s crazy I was just reading this one. This is probably my favorite Marxist work because it puts down so many faux-marxist talking points and corrects the people that have alternative views of Socialism(views that aren’t based in reality)
When I first started to support this channel, I knew this was going somewhere in a positive direction. It exceeded beyond my imagination. Thank you for reading one of my favorite Marx's writings.
I’m having some trouble with the section that basically describes that the distribution of the means of consumption are a product of the distribution of the conditions of production (mode of production?) “any distribution whatever of the means of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves”. Why is the mode of production the basis for distribution of goods for human consumption? Is it because the owners of the means of production have more control over their slice of the pie of the goods that society produces? Additionally, what does the author mean by “distribution of the conditions of productions?” Is this referring to the ownership and relationships to production, like class? Sorry if this is a stupid question, thank you for the great reading as always. ❤
You do such great work, thank you so much! I'm a studying political economist and working labor activist, and these audio-recordings are an amazing resource for anyone working through theory!
Well done, thanks for the work you do! I do have a correction though -- and I don't blame you for this, for this error is also in the marxistsdotorg web page for this text: At 31:10 time stamp, it should be RIVET instead of RIVER. It never made sense to me when I first read the phrase "verbal river" -- I chalked it to something lost in translation. However, when I got my hands on a book printed from the Soviet Union which includes this work by Marx, as soon as I read the word RIVET it just made so much sense to use it in the phrase "verbal rivet." That's all, I hope this helps other readers (and listeners).
Little bit heavy text but understanble. I found the text intresting for what it's. I don't really have any crittctism or everything to add to the text itself.
I'm really feeling more, and more ignorant as I listen to these. I just don't feel like I get it or how/what to apply from these when I try to talk to co-workers.
I wouldn't talk about Marxism at all with your co-workers, unless they're already Marxists. Just talk about working conditions, wages, safety, management, hours, etc.
I would recommend Hakims book recommendation. He has some really good basic books to start with. Don't worry if you feel like you can't apply these yet, I've read and listened to books, talked to other communists, joined forums for extra discussions and books for soon a year and I would barely not call myself a "baby Marxist". This stuff isn't easy, it takes time. Think of it as small steps at a time that you accomplish and slowly start to understand some aspects instead of trying to become a preacher. (I'm not meaning to come of as rude if I made it sound like I was). Also I agree with Ewido, don't speak of Marx or communism, they will instantly shut down anything, regardless of proof or if they actually agree with it. Talk more about things that affect their daily life, like wages, overtime, house prices, the contradicting interests between workers and owners etc etc, but only if you feel comfortable in what you say.
@@MrCarlWax I agree with both replies here. Most people have no idea about Marx and have been conditioned to have a strong negative reaction towards him. We are definitely not preachers of a religion.
In part 2 Marx is giving these libs no wiggle room. "Liberty and fraternity" is still a phrase you hear from Richard Wolff. He says socialism makes good on that phrase. Well, not according to Marx.
@@cadkls Maybe a radlib. But yeah he has stated Marxism is up for grabs erases the scientific actionable process of revolutionary scientific socialism. I think he is a revisionist. But still a cool dude I actually love his work and I think he is a beautiful person.
Mao was right -- we should never fail to asses and reassess our efforts to realize a communist state wherein the least member is equal to the highest. Our philosophy, thanks more to V. Lenin than any other, is to put into place a dictatorship of the proletariat. I find several areas of contention with Engels and Marx in this Gotha Program Critique but I will discuss just one. Principles should always proceed personalities and even the expression of ideas. A person can have a good idea and express it in such a way as to defeat its implementation; but the underlying idea will still survive for reassertion when it is founded on principles or sound philosophy. So it is decidedly backward to argue about definitions such as "what is socialism or communism" prior to a thorough discussion of their purpose. In a materialist context the principle or set of principles is tantamount to a philosophy. God himself understands that without a sound set [of] principles or a coherent philosophy the treadmill turns into a dirt road.
@@SocialismForAll See Marx's letter to Braka [sp] summarizing the Engels/Marx position as iterated by the critique per se. " Engels and I will publish a short statement stating that our position is all together remote from the program of principle and that we have nothing to do with it". (see mark 5:30 to 7:00 of this reading, wherein Marx is summarizing his critique of Gotha in his letter to Braka, et al.)
@@36cmbr I still don't really get what you're saying in relation to the text. What Marx was saying there was that he & Engels found the program deeply flawed and that he felt compelled to criticize it mainly because if he didn't, certain political rivals would try to blame him & Engels for the ideas in it. Hence, he did this criticism to show that they had nothing to do with it & disagreed with it.
@@SocialismForAll I don't object to Marx's criticism of the fledgling Barka [ s/b Gotha ] in Germany; however, all such inter-party criticisms need to be adjudicated for soundness that is founded in the historical dialectic. In this reading Marx also objected to the Swedish socialist experiment, but time has shown his objections as mostly baseless. I reserve the right to fully understand the reasons for the failure of the German experiment. I hope you see my point. So, I presume, your real question is why not simply follow Marx since he seems to be the bench-mark for any of world socialism's success today. I will suggest that true socialism and a strict adherence to Marx's theory of historical materialism will mislead most aboriginal societies into greater and greater versions of capitalism.th-cam.com/video/mmeUYLntZx4/w-d-xo.html .Marx himself was influenced by so many other historical forces that we risk all to ignore what part such influences had upon Marx and understand how he dealt with them. To accept Marx without question seems unwise. Whatever the facts may be, history does not start and stop on a dime. It is developmental and world socialism is too.
Marx wrote: ""Prohibition of child labor." Here it was absolutely essential to state the age limit. A general prohibition of child labor is incompatible with the existence of large-scale industry and hence an empty, pious wish. Its realization -- if it were possible -- would be reactionary, since, with a strict regulation of the working time according to the different age groups and other safety measures for the protection of children, an early combination of productive labor with education is one of the most potent means for the transformation of present-day society." Marx was calling for restrictions on child labor for different age groups, which was to be done alongside school, presumably to give children experience for later entry into the workforce as well as a proletarian, revolutionary consciousness. He does not state what he think are appropriate restrictions per age group though.
40:50 "communist society... as it emerges from capitalist society... still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from who's womb it emerges" Bad faith detractors always ask for some stellar example of communism. Understand this quote and the degree which socialism is being combated and maligned in every way across the globe.
That's not what this is talking about, this is referring to Bourgeois Right/Law not elements such as commodity production, value/money or wage labour which are non existent in communism or it simply isn't communism but a DotP if that
@@Saoirse-dm7ut I think the commentor wasn't implying communism as in the higher phase, but communist states in the transitory phase to communism (socialism). So, assuming he meant socialism and the DOTP, bourgeois elements will take a while to shake off of society.
You are a legend... I was gonna relisten to this one and then I see this in my feed. Well, I know what I'm listening to at work tomorrow! Thank you
Timestamps
Foreword: 2:06
Marx To Bracke: 5:00
Engels To Bebel: 8:34
Part 1: 29:02
Part 2: 54:21
Part 3: 58:57
Part 4: 1:01:41
Appendix: 1:11:32
End: 1:14:09
Thank you! Adding now
Please never stop!
Solidarity from Arizona! ✊
That’s crazy I was just reading this one. This is probably my favorite Marxist work because it puts down so many faux-marxist talking points and corrects the people that have alternative views of Socialism(views that aren’t based in reality)
I am so grateful for the Marxist internet archive
When I first started to support this channel, I knew this was going somewhere in a positive direction. It exceeded beyond my imagination. Thank you for reading one of my favorite Marx's writings.
just did a reading group on this, wish we had this like half a month ago 😂
thank you for making the gotha programme accessible to me
I’m having some trouble with the section that basically describes that the distribution of the means of consumption are a product of the distribution of the conditions of production (mode of production?) “any distribution whatever of the means of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves”. Why is the mode of production the basis for distribution of goods for human consumption? Is it because the owners of the means of production have more control over their slice of the pie of the goods that society produces? Additionally, what does the author mean by “distribution of the conditions of productions?” Is this referring to the ownership and relationships to production, like class? Sorry if this is a stupid question, thank you for the great reading as always. ❤
definitely gonna be something i listen to again a couple years down the line when i'm able to involve myself in orgs
Thanks for recording
"obsolete verbal rubbish" Think I'll change my web page title to that LOL
44:40 "from each according to their abilities from each according to their needs"
Thank you for this quality audiobook, and what I read was a absolute banger.
You do such great work, thank you so much! I'm a studying political economist and working labor activist, and these audio-recordings are an amazing resource for anyone working through theory!
Good video. A really good classic text
Well done, thanks for the work you do! I do have a correction though -- and I don't blame you for this, for this error is also in the marxistsdotorg web page for this text: At 31:10 time stamp, it should be RIVET instead of RIVER. It never made sense to me when I first read the phrase "verbal river" -- I chalked it to something lost in translation. However, when I got my hands on a book printed from the Soviet Union which includes this work by Marx, as soon as I read the word RIVET it just made so much sense to use it in the phrase "verbal rivet."
That's all, I hope this helps other readers (and listeners).
Great work, love the channel
Good work
Days ago I just made the most revisionist comment ever and someone directed me here. Looking forward to learn why I was mistaken
Thank you
For the algorithm
Killer takes, Vanguardsman
THANK YOU!!!
Little bit heavy text but understanble. I found the text intresting for what it's. I don't really have any crittctism or everything to add to the text itself.
do you plan on doing an audiobook on marx’s capital? i know it’s very long but i would love to have it
I'm really feeling more, and more ignorant as I listen to these. I just don't feel like I get it or how/what to apply from these when I try to talk to co-workers.
I wouldn't talk about Marxism at all with your co-workers, unless they're already Marxists. Just talk about working conditions, wages, safety, management, hours, etc.
I would recommend Hakims book recommendation. He has some really good basic books to start with.
Don't worry if you feel like you can't apply these yet, I've read and listened to books, talked to other communists, joined forums for extra discussions and books for soon a year and I would barely not call myself a "baby Marxist". This stuff isn't easy, it takes time. Think of it as small steps at a time that you accomplish and slowly start to understand some aspects instead of trying to become a preacher. (I'm not meaning to come of as rude if I made it sound like I was).
Also I agree with Ewido, don't speak of Marx or communism, they will instantly shut down anything, regardless of proof or if they actually agree with it. Talk more about things that affect their daily life, like wages, overtime, house prices, the contradicting interests between workers and owners etc etc, but only if you feel comfortable in what you say.
@@MrCarlWax I agree with both replies here. Most people have no idea about Marx and have been conditioned to have a strong negative reaction towards him. We are definitely not preachers of a religion.
As Ewido said, you really don't need to be summarizing "Critique of the Gotha Program" to your co-workers, so don't worry about it.
Thanks for the encouragements all :)
Brilliant
In part 2 Marx is giving these libs no wiggle room. "Liberty and fraternity" is still a phrase you hear from Richard Wolff. He says socialism makes good on that phrase. Well, not according to Marx.
You think Richard wolff is a Lib?
@@cadkls Maybe a radlib. But yeah he has stated Marxism is up for grabs erases the scientific actionable process of revolutionary scientific socialism. I think he is a revisionist. But still a cool dude I actually love his work and I think he is a beautiful person.
Good video
3:25 just picture Marx losing his shit and calling people imbeciles and old moles etc.
Mao was right -- we should never fail to asses and reassess our efforts to realize a communist state wherein the least member is equal to the highest. Our philosophy, thanks more to V. Lenin than any other, is to put into place a dictatorship of the proletariat. I find several areas of contention with Engels and Marx in this Gotha Program Critique but I will discuss just one. Principles should always proceed personalities and even the expression of ideas. A person can have a good idea and express it in such a way as to defeat its implementation; but the underlying idea will still survive for reassertion when it is founded on principles or sound philosophy. So it is decidedly backward to argue about definitions such as "what is socialism or communism" prior to a thorough discussion of their purpose. In a materialist context the principle or set of principles is tantamount to a philosophy. God himself understands that without a sound set [of] principles or a coherent philosophy the treadmill turns into a dirt road.
I don't see where the point you're criticizing was expressed in the text.
@@SocialismForAll See Marx's letter to Braka [sp] summarizing the Engels/Marx position as iterated by the critique per se. " Engels and I will publish a short statement stating that our position is all together remote from the program of principle and that we have nothing to do with it". (see mark 5:30 to 7:00 of this reading, wherein Marx is summarizing his critique of Gotha in his letter to Braka, et al.)
@@36cmbr I still don't really get what you're saying in relation to the text. What Marx was saying there was that he & Engels found the program deeply flawed and that he felt compelled to criticize it mainly because if he didn't, certain political rivals would try to blame him & Engels for the ideas in it. Hence, he did this criticism to show that they had nothing to do with it & disagreed with it.
@@SocialismForAll I don't object to Marx's criticism of the fledgling Barka [ s/b Gotha ] in Germany; however, all such inter-party criticisms need to be adjudicated for soundness that is founded in the historical dialectic. In this reading Marx also objected to the Swedish socialist experiment, but time has shown his objections as mostly baseless. I reserve the right to fully understand the reasons for the failure of the German experiment. I hope you see my point. So, I presume, your real question is why not simply follow Marx since he seems to be the bench-mark for any of world socialism's success today. I will suggest that true socialism and a strict adherence to Marx's theory of historical materialism will mislead most aboriginal societies into greater and greater versions of capitalism.th-cam.com/video/mmeUYLntZx4/w-d-xo.html .Marx himself was influenced by so many other historical forces that we risk all to ignore what part such influences had upon Marx and understand how he dealt with them. To accept Marx without question seems unwise. Whatever the facts may be, history does not start and stop on a dime. It is developmental and world socialism is too.
44:20
Not quite sure I understand marx's position on child labour, seemingly calling its abolition reactionary.
Marx wrote:
""Prohibition of child labor." Here it was absolutely essential to state the age limit.
A general prohibition of child labor is incompatible with the existence of large-scale industry and hence
an empty, pious wish. Its realization -- if it were possible -- would be reactionary, since, with a strict
regulation of the working time according to the different age groups and other safety measures for the
protection of children, an early combination of productive labor with education is one of the most potent
means for the transformation of present-day society."
Marx was calling for restrictions on child labor for different age groups, which was to be done alongside school, presumably to give children experience for later entry into the workforce as well as a proletarian, revolutionary consciousness. He does not state what he think are appropriate restrictions per age group though.
Algo Comment
Ta
Looks like a brazilian socialist party program 😅😅😅😅