Analysis Of Critique On The Gotha Programme By Karl Marx

1089 Words 4 Pages
The systematic exploitation of workers is something that should never be justified, and that needs to be addressed in some manner. In texts dealing with the exploitation, there is often a call for revolution. Though over the course of history, there has been a great number of revolutions or uprising that have occurred. Nowhere in the world is immune to experiencing them, nowhere in the world has there never been a need. Unfortunately though, looking through a historical lens, those revolutions do not seem to fix the issues at hand, but instead only reset the system with a new group of oppressors at the top. What does that truly change? The class that is in power merely receives a change of clothes and a new name. My theory is that the correct …show more content…
Early in the document Marx goes in depth about using workers as a means to an end, explaining the value of labor, the source of all wealth, and the relationship of labor and society. “the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.” Essentially, Marx is saying that the control over the workers’s lives do not belong to them at all. In fact, the bourgeoisie say when you live and when you cannot live through wages, in the sense that if you want to do anything, feed your family, travel, have a home, you need to have money, which is given to you by the owners of labor. If they say you cannot get that wage, you are basically not allowed to live or be able to provide for yourself. Transitioning form capitalism to communism was what Marx’s key philosophy was and in order to make that mover their needs to be some form of revolution. “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the …show more content…
“We know that the present State is not “society” representing the “rising working class.” It is itself the representative of capitalist society. It is a class state.” Those words ring very true, especially in America. The Government in The United States can be clearly seen being in favor of those who have the money, and that is because those people are the ones who give them the funding to get elected. By rigging the system, which should be by the people, for the people, to be in favor of those already in power they take the power away from the working class people. Luxemberg believes in the ability to make gradual social reforms is the way to work towards socialism is a viable and legitimate alternative to revolution if it is done correctly. “The trade union struggle for hours and wages and the political struggle for reforms will lead to a progressively more extensive control over the conditions of production,” and “as the rights of the capitalist proprietor will be diminished through legislation, he will be reduced in time to the role of a simple administrator.” “The capitalist will see his property lose more and more value to himself” till finally “the direction and administration of exploitation will be taken from him entirely” and “collective exploitation” instituted.” Those who control the labor should not be the only

Related Documents