# Date: 1917-01

open opportunists of Germany (Bernstein, Kolb etc.) directly deny, while the
Official Programme and Kautsky indirectly, keeping silent about it in everyday agitation
and tolerating the renegacy of the Kolbs and Co.
To Bukharin it was written in VIII. 1916:
"let your thoughts about the state ripen."
He, not letting them ripen, rushed into print, as "Nota bene," and did it in such a way that instead
of exposing the Kautskyites, he helped them with his mistakes!! But in essence, Bukharin is closer
to the truth than Kautsky.
Neue Zeit XIX, 1 (1900 – 1) (No. 26, 27.
III. 1901), p. 804: M. Beer on the decline of England with remarks about its imperialism, decay,
|j
and the imperialism of other countries.---------- NB He
jj NB also: "Sozialer Imperialisms", Neue
Zeit XX, 1 (1901 – 2), p. 209 ff. (Fabians)
und "Die gegenwartige Lage des Trade
Unionismus", ibid., p. 43 (NB) (("I m p e - r i a l i s t i s c h - s o z i a l e Aе r a "))
XIX,
2, p. 197: article by Walter on "Russian imperialism"... ((from Peter I to
China in the 20th century))
[MARX:] CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME.
Engels' letter to Bebel was written on 28/III.
1875. Marx's letter to Bracke with a cri-
tique of the Gotha Programme was written more than a month later: 5. V. 1875 (Neue
Zeit
IX, 1; 1891) (1890 – 1894 No. 48).
At first glance, Marx appears in this letter much more of a "statist,"—
if it is permissible to use this vulgar expression of our enemies,—than Engels.
Engels proposes (1) not to speak at all about the state; (2) to replace this word:

MARX: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME
a open opportunists of Germany (Bernstein, Kolb, etc.) directly deny, and the official
programme and Kautsky indirectly, keeping silent about it in daily agitation and tolerating the re-
negacy of Kolbs and Co.
To Bukharin it was written in VIII. 1916: "let your thoughts about the state ripen." He,
not letting them ripen, rushed into print as "Nota bene",
and did it in such a way that instead of exposing the
Kautskyites he helped them with his mistakes!! But in essence, Bukharin is closer to the truth than
Kautsky.
"Neue Zeit" XIX, 1 (1900-1) (No. 26, 27.
III. 1901), p. 804: M. Beer on the decline of England with remarks about its imperialism, decay,
|j
and the imperialism of other countries.---------- NB He
jj NB also: "Social Imperialism," "Neue Zeit,"
I
XX, 1
1901-2), p. 209 ff. (The Fabians)
and "The Current Situation of Trade Unionism," ibid., p. 43 (NB) (("Imperialist -
social era"))
XIX, 2, p. 197: Walter's article on "Russian imperialism".,, ((from Peter I to China
in the 20th century))
MARX: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME.
Engels' letter to Bebel was written on 28/III.
1875. Marx's letter to Bracke with a cri-
tique of the Gotha Programme was written more than a month later: 5. V. 1875 ("Neue Zeit" IX, 1;
1891) (1890-1894 No. 48).
At first glance, Marx appears in this letter much more of a "statist,"—
if it is permissible to use this vulgar expression of our enemies,—than Engels.
Engels proposes (1) not to speak at all about the state; (2) to replace this word with: "commu- (community"; (3) even declares the commune (i.e.,
the "dictatorship of the proletariat") "no longer a state
in the proper sense,"—and Marx says not a word about all this, but on the contrary, even
speaks of "dem zukünftigen Staatswesen der kommunistischen
Gesellschaft"!! (Neue
Zeit IX, 1, p. 573).*
At first glance, it may appear to be a flat contradiction, confusion, or
disagreement! But this is only at first glance.
Here is the completely decisive (on this point) passage from Marx's letter:
"Die «heutige Gesellschaft» ist die kapita- listische Gesellschaft, die in allen Kulturländern
existiert, mehr oder weniger frei von mittelal- trigem Beisatz, mehr oder weniger durch die
besondre geschichtliche Entwicklung jedes Lan des modifiziert, mehr oder weniger entwickelt.
Dagegen der «heutige Staat» wechselt mit der
Landesgrenze. Er ist ein andrer im preussisch- deutschen Reich als in der Schweiz, (572) ein
(573) andrer in England als in den «Vereinig- ten Staaten». «Der heutige Staat» ist also eine
Fiktion.
«Jedoch haben die verschiednen Staaten der verschiednen
Kulturländer trotz ihrerbunten
Formverschiedenheit alle das gemein, dass sie auf dem Boden der modernen bürgerlichen Ge-
sellschaft stehn, nur einer mehr oder minder kapitalistisch entwickelten. Sie haben daher auch
gewisse wesentliche Charaktere gemein. In diesem
Sinne kann man von «heutigem Staatswesen» sprechen, im Gegensatz zur Zukunft, worin seine
jetzige Wurzel, die bürgerliche Gesellschaft, abge- storben ist.
«Es fragt sich dann: welche Umwandlung wird das Staatswesen in eine г к о m m и n i-
* Here, p. 16 at the bottom [see the present collection, pp. 260 — *262. Ed.].

MARX: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME
nity"; (3) even declares the commune (i.e., "the dic- tatorship of the proletariat") "no longer a state
in the proper sense,"—and Marx says not a word about all this, but on the contrary, even speaks
of "the future statehood of com- munist society"!! ("Neue Zeit" IX, 1,
p. 573)/
At first glance, it may appear to be a flat contradiction, confusion, or
disagreement! But this is only at first glance.
Here is the completely decisive (on this point) passage from Marx's letter:
(("Modern society" is capitalist society, which exists in all
civilized countries, more or less free from the admixture of the Middle Ages, more or less
modified by the peculiarities of the historical development of each country, more or
less developed. On the other hand, "the modern state" changes with each state
border. In the Prussian-German empire it is completely different than in Switzerland,
in England completely different than in the "United
States". "The modern state" is, therefore, a fiction.
"However, despite the motley diversity of their forms, the various states of
various civilized countries have in common that they stand on the soil of the modern bourgeois
society, more or less capitalistically developed.
They therefore have certain essential features in common. In this sense, one can speak
of "modern statehood" in contrast to the future, when its present root, bourgeois society,
dies off.
"The question is then: what transformation will statehood undergo in a

Here, p. 16 at the bottom [see the present collection, pp. 261-263. Ed.], stischen Gesellschaft erleiden? in andern
Worten, welche gesellschaftlichen Funk- tionen bleiben dort übrig, die jetzi-
gen
Staatsfunktionen analog sind?
Diese Frage ist nur wissenschaftlich zu beant- worlen, und man kommt dem Problem durch
tausendfache Zusammensetzung des Wortes Volk mit dem Wort Staat auch nicht um einen Floh-
sprung näher.
«Zwischen der kapitalistischen und der kommunistischen Gesellschaft liegt die Periode
der revolutionären Umwandlung der einen in die andre. Der entspricht auch eine politische
Uebergangsperiode, deren Staat nichts andres sein kann, als die revolutionäre Diktatur des Pro
letariats (курс[ив] М[аркса]).
«Das Programm nun hat es weder mit letz- terer zu tun, noch mit dem zukünftigen Staatswesen
der kommunistischen Gesellschaft.
It is clear that this is a reproach; this is clear from the following phrase: the programme
"deals with" old democratic rubbish (Litanei), and not with
questions of the revolutionary dic- tatorship of the proletariat and the state-
hood of communist society...
"Seine politischen Forderungen enthalten nichts ausser der alten weltbekannten demokra-
tischen Litanei: allgemeines Wahlrecht, direkte
Gesetzgebung, Volksrecht, Volkswehr etc. Sie sind blosses Echo der bürgerlichen Volkspartei,
des Friedens- und Freiheitsbundes"... (573)...
(These same demands have already been "imple- mented" — only not in the German state,
but in others, in Switzerland, in the United

MARX: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME
communist society? In other words: what social functions will remain then that are analo-
gous to current state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically; and however
many thousands of times one combines the word "people" with the word "state," it will not bring one
a flea-hop closer to its resolution.
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of revolutionary
transformation of the one into the other. To this period there also corresponds a political transi-
tional period, and the state of this period can be nothing other than the revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx's italics).
(572-573) [428-9] "The programme is concerned neither with this latter,
nor with the future statehood of communist society."
It is clear that this is a reproach; this is clear
| from the following phrase: the programme
'
"deals with" old democratic
;
rubbish, and not with the questions
! of the revolutionary dictatorship of the pro-
! letariat and the statehood of the com-
! munist society...
{
j____
!
"Its political demands contain nothing but the old democratic
rubbish: universal suffrage, direct legislation, people's right, national
militia, and so on—all this is a simple echo of the bourgeois people's party, the League
of Peace and Freedom"... (573)...
(These demands have already been "imple- mented"—only not in the German state,
but in others, in Switzerland, in the United tres bien (and very
important)
States]. These:
demands] are appropriate ("am
Platze")
only in a democratic republic. The programme does not de-
mand a republic, as the French workers' programmes did under Louis
Philippe and
Louis
Napoleon,—it is not possible to do that in
Germany, so there is no point in demanding things that are only appropriate in a demo-
cratic republic from a military despotism... even vulgar democracy "steht noch berg hoch iiber sol-
cher Art Demokratentum innerhalb der Grenzen des polizeilich
Erlaubten (logisch
Unerlaubten".
In these words, Marx as if fore- saw all the vulgarity of Kautskyism:
sweet talk about all sorts of good things, turning into embellishing
reality, because the irreconcil- ability of the democratic world
and imperialism, democracy and monarchy, etc., is glossed over or left in the shadows.
;
Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a "political transitional period"; it is clear that
the state of this period is also a transition from the state to the non-state, i.e. "kein
Staat im eigentlichen Sinne mehr". Marx and
Engels, therefore, do not contradict each other on this point at all.
But further, Marx speaks of "the future statehood of communist society"!!
So even in "communist society" there will be statehood!!
Is there a contradiction here?

MARX: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME
States. These demands are appropriate only in a democratic republic. The pro-
gramme does not demand a republic, as the French workers' programmes
did under Louis Philippe and Louis
Napoleon,—it is not possible to do that in Germany, so there is no point in
demanding things that are only appropriate in a democratic republic, from a military
despotism... even vulgar democracy "stands in immeasurable
heights above that sort of democra- tism, which keeps itself
within the bounds of the police-allowed, logically unacceptable".
In these words, Marx as if fore- j
; saw all the vulgarity of Kautskyism: sweet talk about all sorts of good things, turning
into embellishing reality, because the irreconcilability of the democratic
world and imperialism, democracy and
; monarchy, etc., is glossed over or left in the shadows.
|
Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a "political transitional period"; it is clear that
the state of this period is also a transition from the state to the non-state, i.e. "no longer
a state in the proper sense". Marx and Engels, therefore, do not contradict
each other on this point at all.
But further, Marx speaks of "the future statehood of communist society"!!
So even in "communist society" there will be statehood!!
Is there a contradiction here?
very good (and very important)

No:
I ------ in capitalist society the state in the proper sense
II ------ transition (dictatorship of pro- letariat): state of a transi-
tional type (not a state in the proper sense)
III — — communist society: withering away of the state.
Full consistency and clarity!!
Otherwise:
I state is
!
needed by the bourgeoisie
I
state is needed by the proletariat state is not needed,
it withers away.
I — democracy only for the rich and for a small stratum of the proletariat.
[The poor cannot afford it!]
II — democracy for the poor, for 9/10 of the population, sup-
pression by force of the resistance of the rich
III
— democracy complete, becoming a habit and therefore withering away, giving
way to the principle:
"each according to his abilities!, each according to needs." see p. 19 sideways *
I — democracy only as an exception, never complete...
II — democracy almost com plete, limited only by the suppression of the resistance of
the bourgeoisie
III — democracy truly com plete, becoming a habit and therefore with-
ering away... Complete democ- racy equals no de- mocracy. This is not a paradox,
but the truth!
The Critique of the Gotha Programme also contains a very significant passage pertaining to the state,
devoted to the economic analysis of the future society.
Marx criticizes here (pp. 565-7) Lassalle's idea of "undiminished proceeds of labour",
shows the necessity of deducting a fund to cover the worn-out part of the means
of production, a reserve fund, expenses for
* See the present collection, p. 270. Ed.

MARX: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME
No:
I ------ in capitalist society the state in the proper sense
II
transition (dictatorship of pro- letariat) state of a transi-
tional type (not a state in the proper sense)
111-------communist society:
withering away of the state.
Full consistency and clarity!!
Otherwise:
I — democracy only as an exception, never complete...
the state is needed by the bour geoisie the state is needed by the prole
tariat the state is not needed, it withers away.
II
— democracy almost com plete, limited only by the suppression of the resistance of
the bourgeoisie
III — democracy truly com plete, becoming a habit and therefore with-
ering away... Complete democ- racy equals no de- mocracy. This is not a paradox,
but the truth!
I—democracy only for the rich and for a small stratum of the proletariat. [The poor
cannot afford it!]
II— democracy for the poor, for 9/10 of the population, the
suppression by force of the re- sistance of the rich
III — democracy complete, be coming a habit and there- fore
withering away, giving way to the principle:
"each according to his abilities, each according to his needs",
see p. 19 sideways
The Critique of the Gotha Programme also contains a very significant passage pertaining to the state,
devoted to the economic analysis of the future society.
Marx criticizes here (pp. 565-7) Lassalle's idea of "undiminished proceeds of labour",
shows the necessity of deducting a fund to cover the worn-out part of the means
of production, a reserve fund, expenses for
* See the present collection, p. 271. Ed.

management, for schools, sanitation, etc., and continues:
"Womit wir es hier zu tun haben, ist eine kommunistische Gesellschaft, nicht wie sie sich
auf ihrer eigenen Grundlage entwichelt hat, son- dern umgekehrt, wie sie eben aus der kapita-
listischen Gesellschaft hervorgeht; die also in jeder Beziehung, ökonomisch, sittlich, geistig,
noch behaftet ist mit den Muttermalen der alten Gesellschaft, aus deren Schooss sie her-
kommt. Demgemäss erhält der einzelne Pro-
>B
duzent — nach den Abzugen — exakt zurück, was or ihr giebt. Was er ihr gegeben hat, ist
sein individuelles Arbeitsquantum. Z. B. der gesellschaftliche
Arbeitstag besteht aus der
Summe der individuellen Arbeitsstunden; die individuelle Arbeitszeit des einzelnen Produzen-
ten ist der von ihm gelieferte Teil des gesell- schaftlichen Arbeitslags, sein Anteil daran. Er
erhält von der Gesellschaft einen Schein, dass er so und so vie I Arbeit geliefert (nach Abzug
seiner Arbeit fur die gemeinschaftlichen Fonds)
und zieht mit diesem Schein aus dem gesell- schaftlichen Vorrat von Konsumtionsmitteln so
viel heraus, als gleichviel Arbeit kostet. Das- selbe Quatum Arbeit, das er der Gesellschaft in
einer Form gegeben hal, erhält er in der ande- ren zurück» (566).
"Nothing can pass into the property of individuals except individual consumer goods."* "Was aber die Ver-
teilung der letzteren unter die einzelnen Produ- zenten betrifft, herrscht dasselbe Pripzip wie
beim Austausch von Waarenaquivalenten, es wird gleichviel Arbeit in einer Form gegen gleich
viel Arbeit in einer andern umgetauscht» (567).
Marx's German text: "iii das Eigentum der Einzelnen nichts
iibergehen kann, ausser individuellen Konsumtionsmitteln". Ed.

MARX: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME
management, for schools, sanitation, etc., and continues:
"What we are dealing with here is not with a communist society which has developed
on its own basis, but with a society which has just emerged from capitalist society, and
which is therefore, in every respect, economic, moral and intellectual, still stamped with
the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerged. Accordingly, the individual
producer receives back from so- ( NB ciety, after all deductions have been made, exactly
what he himself gives to it. What he has given to society is his individual quantum of
labour. The social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of labour;
the working time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed
by him, his share of it. He receives from society a voucher that he has furnished such-and-
such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds), and with
this voucher he draws from the social stock of consumer goods as much as the same amount
of labour costs. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form, he re-
ceives back in another form" (566).
"Nothing can pass into the property of individuals except individual consumer goods". "But as for the
distribution of the latter among individual producers, the same principle prevails here
as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a certain amount
of labour in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labour in another". This equality

This equality of law presupposes inequality, inequality
in fact, inequality between people, because one is strong, another is weak, etc.
Individuals "wären nicht verschiedene Individuen, wenn sie nicht Ungleiche wären") (567), —
one will receive more than another.
So:
I "the long agony of childbirth"
II "the first phase of communist society"
III
"the higher phase of communist society" "Aber diese Misstände sind unvermeidbar
in der ersten Phase der kommunistischen Ge- sellschaft, wie sie eben aus der kapitalistischen
Gesellschaft nach langen Geburtswehen hervor- gegangen ist. Das Recht kann nie höher sein
als die ökonomische Gestaltung und dadurch bedingte Kulturentwicklung der Gesellschaft.
NR
NR
"In einer höheren Phase der kommunisti schen Gesellschaft, nachdem die knechtende
Unterordnung der Individuen unter die Teilung der Arbeit, damit auch der Gegensatz geistiger
und körperlicher Arbeit verschwunden ist; nachdem die Arbeit niiht nur Mittel zum Le-
ben, sondern selbst das erste Lebensbediirfniss geworden; nachdem mit der allseitigen Ent-
wicklung der Individuen auch die Produktions- krafte gewachsen sind, und alle Springquellen
des genossenschaftlichen Reichtums voller flies- sen—erst dann kann der enr/e bürgerliche Rechts-
horizont ganz iiberschritten werden und die
Gesellschaft auf ihre Fahncn schreiben: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen
Bedürfnissen!" (567).
Thus, two phases of communist society are clearly, distinctly, and precisely distinguished here:

MARX: CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME
equality of law presupposes inequality, inequal- ity in fact, inequality between
people, because one is strong, another is weak, etc.
(individuals "would not be different individ- uals if they were not un-
equal") (567),—one will receive more than another.
"But these defects are unavoidable in the first phase of communist society, in the form
in which it emerges, after long agony of childbirth, from capitalist society.
Law can never be higher than the economic structure and the cultural development of society
conditioned thereby.
So:
I "the long agony of childbirth"
II "the first phase of communist society"
III
"the higher phase of communist society" "In a higher phase
of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of individuals to the division
of labour has disappeared; when together with this the antithesis between intellectual
and physical labour has vanished; when labour has ceased to be merely a means of livelihood
but has become itself the prime necessity of life; when with the all-round development of
individuals their productive forces have also increased and all the springs of co-operative
wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be fully
transcended and society will inscribe on its banner: From each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs!" (567). [4Л5—6]
Thus, two phases of communist society are clearly, distinctly, and precisely distinguished here:
||| NB