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.

Thank you! Adding now

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 :)

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.

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.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o9OViLx909q-qGg.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.