Critique of the Gotha Program

I think the Critique of the Gotha program is a particularly interesting reading from Karl Marx. To begin he is very witty in his assault against what he sees as a ideological pervasion and retrograde reforms contained in the Lassalle's contribution. The most interesting and powerful argument made is found on 325. In this section, Marx says that wages are not the value or price of labor but rather the price or value of labor power. That the bourgeoisie notion of wages are to give the worker "permission to work for his own subsistence", working free for a certain time for the capitalist and that this whole capitalist structure is based on extending free work through developing productivity or lengthening the work day is the basis by which Marx calls the system slavery. Basically it is working without ever really gaining access to the means of production rather than a small slice of the surplus distribution of profit. Those with ownership of land and capital gain do not have to work because they can ride on the profit that they derive from owning the means of production and the income of the power of others' labor.

Historical, Cyclical Revolution

What I find interesting above communism itself is Marx's historical interpretation of economics and class. There is a great sense of irony that comes from the change from feudalism to capitalism to communism. Marx describes a defection from a number of the nobility into the bourgeoisie at the end of feudalism and he lays a cyclical pattern of bourgeoisie ideologists who defect to the proletariat(167). Ironically Marx states that, "the weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself". (164) I think his analysis of history is interestingly valid but is also lacking the detail that would prevent it from being too subjectively generalized. Marxian analysis remains valid today though because his words from over 150 years ago seem to accurately describe the adverse affects of unrestrained capitalism through industrialism and globalization. It may be argued that his views projected into the future of communist triumphs are far less valid then his historical analysis. It still lays an important way of examining historical economic problems that continue today but his view of change suffers from ideological rigidity.