The Critique of the Golgotha Program

Robert Waldmannon Karl Marx, Arthur Laffer and Simon Peter. Which single at this time is not like the others, since he was a outrageous radical egalitarian not an ambitious doctrinaire ?Marx famously affirmed "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This is quite almost certainly the grossest distortion of a quote by taking absent of background in person history. The words are (a conversion from German) of two prepositional phrases from a sentence from The Critique of the Gotha program (the absence of a verb is a hint that maybe some pertinent background might have been removed). The grosses possible distortion based on taking absent of background is taking absent of the express "not" and, lo and behold, it appears in the (Eglish conversion of the sentence). A more accurate but still partial quotation (of a translation) is"not ... inscribe on our sign "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs")". I mean there ought to be an absolute rule that, while a lot of words can be decently elided we can all agree that "not" is not single of them (or to do again with a minor edit "while a lot of words can be decently elided, we can all agree that not is ... single of them).more antiquarian exigesis and doubter theology after the jump.The full (translation of) the quote is IIRC "It is not until work ceases to be a burden on life and becomes it's chief joy and purpose that we can inscribe on our sign "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Which I, quite honestly, intepret as meaning "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs from the first of never and not before."Marx believed that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to the same extent that he was an anarchist -- that he required to get rid of the state, that is, rather less than not at all. IIRC Marx wished for the state to seize ownership and control of the means of production, rather a enormous growth of the power of the state than an elimination of same.To make an analogy, I think that Marx careful it a good suggestion to get rid of the state *and* give to each according to his abilities to exactly the same extent that Arthur Laffer aims to increase the quantity of money the federal government has to spend. Marx supposed get bigger the power of the state and it will disappear, Laffer supposed cut taxes and revenues will increase. I think Marx was devoted to the reduction of the power of the state to exactly the same extent that Arthur Laffer is devoted to expanding the federal budget.Over at the first international, Marx had a problem called Bakunin. The chap promised people negative capitalists, negative private property and negative state. Marx claimed that you could get all Bakunin was talented from Marx, since in the long long long run the state would wither away. So,. sure it looks like collectivism implies a enormous growth of the power of the state but nope that's just collectivism which will lead to the communist utopia of now bosses neither capitalists nor bureaucrats -- just trust me.Later Marx had this problem that his few German followers (the Eisenachers) decided to join with the Social Democrats who had the inexcusable fault of being led by Ferdinand Lassale not Karl Marx. Hence the Gotha program and its only permanent crop "The critique of the Gotha program." The phrase was tattered from the background of the suggestion that all workers be waged the same equal wage. Marx supposed that was nonsense. He complete an argument which was a bit ahead of his time asking if this mean all workers get the same wage consequently single workers are rich and large families supporterd by single employee are poor ? Makes negative sense (he in fact didn't even mention compensating differentials consequently he was ahead of his time but behind Smith who was way ahead of his time and, come to think of it, ours). So he was arguing *against* equal wages. He supposed negative way consequently long as we need wages to convince people to work. Only when (not if -- when) people just work out of public spirit and joy in labor can we even think about demanding perfect equality (and then we will have to find someone whose love of labor is extreme insane and humanly impossible enough that he or she will work out correspondence scales without being waged to do so).Please please please follow this rule "Do not elide the express 'not'" that is "Do ... elide the express 'not'".I don't believe Marx's promises about the whithering absent of the state and the joy of work (comparing our work efforts single can at least understand how Karl and I have very different views about work). I consequently interpret the Critique of the Gotha Program as implying, in practice, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, starting on the first of never."OK consequently what about those apostles. Fact is that The Gotha Program is extreme but that Marx is deliberately conflating it with a much much more egalitarian and extreme program as a oratorical trick (so if he were to protest as I do about the elision of "Not" single might reply that what goes around comes around and soul lo fa l'aspetta). Basically the man was trying to insult the joint Social Democrats and Eisenachers by conflating them with a bunch of outrageous extremists -- the Christians. The phrase which can be translated (from Greek not German) as "to each according to his need" and fairly quoted without distortion due to taking absent of background comes neither from "The Critique of the Gotha Program" nor from "The Gotha Program" (as quoted in the critique) but from the Bible and, in particular from "The Acts of the Apostles" which, quite frankly, makes "The Communist Manifesto" look like the McCain platform (with all due respect for McCain, Marx and the Apostles).OK consequently history is a prankster and karma is a bitch. Driven by envy and ambition, Marx decided to claim that, when it came to wages, Ferdinande Lassale was an impractical impossibilist radical just like Simon Peter. As a result, a lot of people have decided that Karl Marx was an impractical impossibilist radical egalitarian just like Simon Peter. This is crazy. Not quite as crazy as the idea that single can be together a Christian and a crusader or together a Crhistian and a Republican but crazy.In closing, I note that I am together an doubter and a reasonable moderate, consequently I agree with Karl Marx and, like Marx, refuse the impractical dreams of St Peter for the foreseable future.
Watch Live TV on your Laptop or Desktop PC!