Reflexions Sur Les Causes De La Liberte

by Simone Weil

poche. Poche.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Essays, France, Sociology, Feminism

Paperback

First published January 1, 1934

About the author

Simone Weil was a French philosopher, Christian mystic, and social activist. Weil was born in Paris to Alsatian agnostic Jewish parents who fled the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. Her brilliance, ascetic lifestyle, introversion, and eccentricity limited her ability to mix with others, but not to teach and participate in political movements of her time. She wrote extensively with both insight and breadth about political movements of which she was a part and later about spiritual mysticism. Weil biographer Gabriella Fiori writes that Weil was "a moral genius in the orbit of ethics, a genius of immense revolutionary range".

Reviews

[Lucy · Rating 4 out of 5]

basically simone weil tweeted 'marxism is just another religion' and then every male french writer stole her tweet and got more likes

[E. G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

--Prospects: Are we heading for the Proletarian Revolution?

--Reflections Concerning Technocracy, National-Socialism, the U.S.S.R. and Certain Other Matters
--On Lenin's book 'Materialism and Empiriocriticism'

--Reflections Concerning the Causes of Liberty and Social Oppression
--Critique of Marxism
--Analysis of Oppression
--Theoretical Picture of a Free Society
--Sketch of Contemporary Social Life
--Conclusion

--Fragments, 1933-1938
--Critical Examination of the Ideas of Revolution and Progress
--Meditation on Obedience and Liberty
--On the Contradictions of Marxism

--Fragments, London 1943

--Is There a Marxist Doctrine?

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

In some ways a strange collection--the central essay is excellent, and some of the little squibs associated with it here are good, but I'm not sure you need to read the whole thing. The earliest piece suggests that the 20th century would witness a new form of oppression based on bureaucracy; it could be tied to power, as in the USSR or fascist states, and it's perfectly at home in capitalism too, except it eliminates most of the (non-economic) benefits of the latter. What to do given all this? We must accept that the working class has been destroyed, that 'socialism' is a form of oppression, and accept that we live in a world of total alienation. Better to understand this, she suggests, and hope for something better, than stick our heads in the sand. Fair enough.

She then asks if there can be organization without bureaucratization, and makes a case study of Lenin's thought--hardly the first place you'd go now, but more understandable in 1933. The answer, unsurprisingly, is that Lenin's thought does not give us a model of organization without bureaucratization, because he sees humans as objects, wants the masses to believe rather than think, that is, to blindly submit to "science". Which sounds like a good description of most forms of 21st century government, with a few tweaks on the definition of "science."

The main essay is a bit more diffuse, but also a laudable attempt to construct a unified theory of oppression. Weil starts with Marx, but insists that he only theorized one kind of oppression, not oppression as a whole. It's important to know what we mean when we say "oppression," because any use of the language of "revolution" without a clear concept of the former is empty--revolution away from what?

So we have to know, is it "possible to conceive of an organization of production which, though powerless to remove the necessities imposed by nature and the social constraint arising therefrom, would enable these at any rate to be exercised without grinding down souls and bodies under oppression"? To know that, we must set up, as an ideal, a model of social organization that is free of oppression entirely--while acknowledging that such a thing will never happen. It's a regulative ideal. Given our objective conditions, what is the least oppressive form possible? And how do we get there?

She argues that "oppression is exercised by force," and spends some time theorizing what "force" is--which is very similar to a lot of Marxist and Frankfurt school thought on why, despite the possibility of meeting everyone's needs, we do such a great job of meeting only a few people's. Weil's theory of "force" allows her to suggest that there is a contradiction at the heart of oppression: the material bases of power are necessarily limited, but the race for power is unlimited. Conflict is inevitable.

She gives us one version of the regulative ideal, based on recognizing the importance of collectivities and collective action, but also the importance of individual understanding and action within those collectivities--again, very post-Marxist, a vision of "society in which collective life would be subject to men as individuals instead of subjecting them to itself." She concludes with a scathing portrait of 20th century life as pretty much the opposite of this.

The book ends with fragments and an essay. The fragments are, well, fragments, but with some great little bits included, particularly on the use of contradiction in thinking (which comes very close to Adorno's negative dialectics). The essay, 'Is there a Marxist doctrine?' argues that there isn't, and, more or less, if there was one, it would be Christianity. You might not agree with that, but her argument that there is not yet a Marxist doctrine is convincing.

Weil is a real treasure, and she should be taken very seriously by anyone interested in critical theory of any stripe. She isn't, because critical theory types have, in the past, tended to be secular humanists of the no-time-for-any-religious-people kind. She saw the horrors of the USSR--not in practice, which anyone could have seen, but in theory--far earlier than most French people, at least (and thus contradicts Tony Judt's constant carping about French intellectuals). She made theoretical innovations that nobody else managed for thirty years. And she can write sentences that don't hurt my eyes. A minor miracle.

[Alejandra Arévalo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me enoja mucho que este libro siga siendo tan actual, ojalá ya haya nacido la generación que le toque ver caer al sistema. Qué genial pensadora es Simone Weil

[Ajeje Brazov · Rating 5 out of 5]

"In generale, i rapporti di dominio e di sottomissione tra gli esseri umani, poichè non sono mai pienamente accettabili, costituiscono sempre uno squilibrio senza rimedio e che si aggrava perpetuamente; lo stesso accade anche nell'ambito della vita privata, in cui l'amore, ad esempio, distrugge ogni equilibrio nell'anima non appena cerca di asservire a sè il proprio oggetto o di asservirsi ad esso. Ma in questo caso almeno nulla di esterno si oppone a che la ragione torni a mettere tutto in ordine stabilendo la libertà e l'uguaglianza; mentre i rapporti sociali, nella misura in cui i procedimenti stessi del lavoro e della lotta escludono l'uguaglianza, sembrano far pesare la follia sugli uomini come una fatalità esterna. Appunto perchè non c'è mai potere, ma solamente corsa al potere, e questa corsa è senza termine, senza limite, senza misura, non c'è neppure limite nè misura agli sforzi che essa esige..."
"Qualunque siano le fonti dalle quali gli sfruttatori traggono i beni di cui si appropriano, arriva un momento in cui tale procedimento di sfruttamento, dapprima sempre più produttivo man mano che si estendeva, diventa poi al contrario sempre più costoso."
"La verità è che, la schiavitù avvilisce l'uomo fino al punto di farsi amare dall'uomo stesso; che la libertà è preziosa solo agli occhi di coloro che la possiedono effettivamente; e che un regime del tutto inumano, com'è il nostro, lungi dal forgiare esseri capaci di edificare una società umana, modella a sua immagine tutti coloro che gli sono sottomessi, tanto gli oppressi quanto gli oppressori."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsE5N...

[Lucía Martín · Rating 5 out of 5]

Siempre tengo cosas que decir de los libros de Weil, se podría decir que es de esas autoras que no usan sus palabras a la ligera. Sin duda es de los mejores textos políticos de la filosofa: Weil es siempre atemporal y necesaria.

Actualizando 18.02.25 - Releyendo para poder escribir el tfg click click click.

Actualizado 31.03.26 - Releyendo para poder escribir el tfm click click click.

[Sérgio Cruz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Esta foi a obra que menos gostei do que li até agora de Simone Weil. A sua filosofia é muito profunda e interessante e o livro tem, do ponto de vista da condição humana do indivíduo, rasgos de elevada profundidade. A crítica ao marxismo aqui presente poderá ter alguns pontos de interesse, mas perde-se ao vê-lo como algo estanque, não fazendo sentido em muito do que li. O discurso é pessimista, por vezes contraditório e pouco fluído, tornando a leitura pouco apelativa ao longo de várias páginas. Estamos perante um texto carregado de utopia (ainda bem!), propondo todo um processo utópico para lá chegar, se é que o propõe sequer (aqui já preciso de muito mais), tal como a própria autora acaba por assumir.

David Graeber, antropólogo e intelectual anarquista, cujos livros me enchem as medidas, disse algures que "mais que uma Grande Teoria, poderíamos dizer que o que falta ao anarquismo é uma Base Teórica". Talvez este livro, ainda que escrito já em 1934, seja um bom exemplo disso mesmo.

[Vendedor de rápida · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me alucina que entre las muchas cosas alucinantes que dice Simone Weil, estuviera hablando de robores y automatización del trabajo (y hasta de big data) en 1934. Está claro que volvió de su viaje a Alemania un poco trastornada y viéndolas venir:

“Si se pudiesen concebir condiciones de vida que no comportasen ningún imprevisto, tendría sentido el mito americano del robot y sería posible la completa supresión del trabajo humano por la disposición sistemática del mundo”.
(…)
“La historia humana es la historia de la esclavitud que hace de los hombres, tanto de los opresores como de los oprimidos, el simple juguete de los instrumentos de dominación que ellos mismos han fabricado, rebaja así a la humanidad viva a ser un objeto de la materia inerte”.

[Francesca · Rating 4 out of 5]

deducting a star because this was so dense and intellectual that it actually gave me a headache. a must read if you write essays on Marxist ideology.

Interesting propositions and majority Marxist critiques:
https://francesbeau.tumblr.com/post/6...

[Mery_B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Se dice a menudo que la fuerza es incapaz de doblegar el pensamiento, pero, para que sea verdad, es necesario que haya pensamiento. Allí donde las opiniones irracionales sustituyen a las ideas, la fuerza lo puede todo.
Es muy injusto, por ejemplo, decir que el fascismo aniquila el pensamiento; en realidad, es la ausencia de pensamiento libre lo que permite la imposición por la fuerza de doctrinas oficiales enteramente desprovistas de significación.

[Spyros Passas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is really a phenomenally good book. The writing is impeccable, abstaining from elaborate verbalism (rather commonplace in texts of French theorists) and the concepts are treated in clear, systematic and rigorous manner. I'm not going to write anything on the content yet until I find some time to organize my notes.

[Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

A key text in disillusionment and proper resistance, all over a sound and clear intelligence, redefining the essence of oppression, revolution, and Marxism.

In PROSPECTS, Weil warns revolutionaries from letting 'empty hopes set us afire' like the Ajax of Sophocles, against ideals out the bounds of reality capable of yielding only disaster. She points to the 'bad joke' that was the Russian Revolution and how its centralization of the State machine was enough evidence to prove its opposition to the promised proletariat revolution, not even excusing Trotsky who Simone Weil sheltered for a temporary stay in 1933. However, the Revolution had risen to a 'third class' solidifying the dictatorship of the minority for perhaps the rest of time: the bureaucracy; "The bureaucratic machine, though composed of flesh… is nonetheless as irresponsible and soulless as are machines of iron and steel.” Even from WWII both the United States and Germany, as an example of two conflicting moralities of government, devoted themselves to the State machine, centralizing for security. Weil puts her faith into the skilled workmen of old whose production has been continued in the favour of petty, uneducated and unskilled workers; the manner of production diminishing the intelligence, agency, and autonomy of the individual, reducing newer generations of workers to less than mere cogs in a machine. This section serves as a warning to choose wisely the strategy and ideology of your revolution.

REFLECTIONS CONCERNING TECHNOCRACY, NATIONAL-SOCIALISM, THE USSR, AND OTHER SOCIAL MATTERS also contains Weil's Lenin on Materialism and Emperiocentrism as it's second half. The first half describes the current state of revolution as stagnant, worse than it ever has been (at the time of writing, 1933); capitalism keeps chugging as the revolutionary lay idle. Now, with the rising popularity and adoption of bureaucracy in State apparatuses, she questions if such a revolution is even possible. In the second half, on Lenin's method, Weil describes how Lenin argues against his opponents' Berkely-infused idealism in favour of stone cold materialism, outwardly rejecting Kant's noumena. In it, she also observes the merging of science and bureaucracy, polluting science with management and technicalities bound to slowly corrupt its actual meaning for the mere acquisition of knowledge. In rise of these issues, Weil once again asks us to reconsider the possibility of revolution and who shall be in charge, for surely they cannot be among the bureaucratic socialists for whom their their support of this bureaucracy exponentially devastates the progression of nationwide enlightenment and progression of the working-class as the decades go by.

THE CAUSES OF LIBERTY AND SOCIAL OPPRESSION feature an extensive amount of thought and criticism regarding the modern interpretation of revolution, the means for its arousal, and the poverty of Marxism, contained in four parts. She states in the introduction: "We live in a period bereft of a future." Everyone from the industrialist to the worker has lost faith in progress and innovation, they yield neither happiness nor satisfaction.
To at least clear the air of revolutionary spectacle, she begins with the the first part, the Critique of Marxism, first stating her appreciation for his illustration of the capitalist system yet admits such a system 'lies at the very foundation of our social life and cannot be destroyed by a political or judicial revolution.'
Science, bureaucratization, and most importantly the system of the factory is what provides the worker their misery, not something such as private property which does not eliminate the fact that workers still have to work. These systems, along with the scientific and bureaucratic, are inherently not in the favour of the worker, and idealizing a system where it may is mere 'daydreaming' as Weil frequently calls such thoughts unaware of the permanent distinction between the managerial and executive. "One can only organize and perfect oppression, not lighten it."
After questioning the legitimacy of his theory on productive forces, such as to how they are capable of unlimited development or why they are guaranteed to inherit the economy after a revolution, she explains despite Marx's flipping of Hegel's dialectics, which she admits is already jargon, Marx produced a method that was, since then and maybe forever, has been 'untried' as his method amounts to extrapolation from science rather than science itself, especially since it contains an essentialist and determinist doctrine prophesying the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Even if the communists were to take over the economy, how would they rid of its inherent systemic oppression? “No technology will relieve men of the necessity of continually adapting, by the sweat of their brow, to mechanical equipment." Of simultaneous efforts and successive efforts, there does not exist such a successive effort that would eradicate labor altogether or even diminish it to a non-slavish equivalent, especially considered the many factories built and dedicated to materials only capable of being mined, only capable by the means of slave workers who will be forced to work harder as nonrenewable materials deplete overtime.
-
In the second part, the Analysis of Oppression, Weil states the problem as trying to succeed in understanding oppression by how it 'arises, subsists, transforms; by what means it might disappear.' As this task requires little concern for the purely ideal, she quickly renounces the Marxist belief that oppression will disappear after the productive forces are taken over, or until their guaranteed eventual demise. The organization of capital and armaments is the only sphere of existence we can manage with precision and accuracy, so it is important to define the expectation according to the actual limits and boundaries of reality, which is a task Weil states as impossible given our inferior historical and scientific tools incapable of studying or working 'otherwise than in the service of our oppressor'.
Oppression is simply natural in all beings, and the privileged have forever received their sustenance from oppressed labor. The power always remains in the hands of a few, as seen in the fields of science, bureaucracy, and religion. The few maintain the simpler objective while the masses are forever confused by their internal conflict and number 'simply because it is the nature of things.' The armaments, another method of maintaining oppression, remain restricted from the hands of the masses by monopolization of their production and distribution. All this makes the worker at the mercy of the warrior, unless the warriors of the world, perhaps only by cosmic means, gain sympathy for the proletariat and loosen their grasp on their survival.
Power, though many remain blind to the fact, is only a thrill that Weil describes more appropriately as the 'race of power'; power is made an object in the race of power, a collective battle in all societies that force both those who wield power and those who wield and yield to power in a constant state of aggressive offence and defence of whatever privilege they have, no matter how little or how grand, always in search for more. In this process one destroys all relationships and boundaries as power becomes an end in itself which, once it becomes, becomes extremely difficult to remove. 'Power extends to what it can't control,' and in doing so it founds new means of capital acquisition, producing an infinitely expanding proletariat as power relationships remain unmoved; in the revolution 'its oppressors do not disappear but merely assume another shape'.
-
The third part, 'Theoretical Picture of a Free Society', is focused on Weil's description of the ideal revolutionary and his revolutionary ideals. A man who is actually free is free in his execution of the means concerning the end which he sets himself, who adapts himself insofar as his mind is capable.
At the same time, we almost have control over our bodies, yet there always lingers a supreme confusion between the mind and body constantly producing a dysphoria that, ‘contrary to what we like to think, no man is completely from,’ reducing our actions to merely ‘abstract diagrams indicating sequences of movement.’
Yet, in this hypothetical society, Weil devises the features of an open society minimizing suffering, 'by the clearest intelligence'. Individuals should be in constant methodical thought; education should be widespread and available to all; specialized skills should be pursued in accordance with a general autonomy; composed of humility and pragmatism, 'it is true, they are bound by collective ties, but exclusively in their capacity as men; they would never be treated as other things.'
-
Weil tops off this brilliant chunk of the work with Sketch of Contemporary Social Life, where she explains how the misleading intentions of the bureaucracy infects science with the sole task of 'swelling the present volume of knowledge' rather than with any true method or motivation from the system. Bureaucratic crystallizations are to be found all across contemporary science, which society increasingly finds itself rooted in. If it is devised not to be of utilitarian importance or nothing is substantial in its fascination or rate of growth, no discovery is deemed important.
"Signs, words and algebraic formulas in the field of knowledge, money and credit systems in economic life, play the part in reality in which actual things themselves constitute only a shadow." This is clearly a consequence of the destitute situation of the skilled workmen and the abundance of his qualities: a lack of critical thinking, a chase for arbitrary success and profit.
Hegel and Marx were both motivated by the idea of something indefinitely progressing towards a good, yet neither the Spirit nor Progress are bound for anything that could be considered a net benefit for humanity. With the growth of population comes the growth of capitalism; economies grow to become bureaucratic as the rickety foundation of economics struggles in dealing with more and more situations, also leading to its inevitable centralization with the State apparatus.
As a result: "The worker does not feel he has earned his living as a producer; the undertaking enslaves him for long hours of the day and allows him each week a sum of money which gives him the magic to conjure up at any moment more ready-made products, exactly how the rich do." the governors give up on governing; none of the classes perceive power to in fact be nowhere; the system does not care enough to better the condition of the working classes if profit is steady - and it seems even if profit isn't steady the oppression only worsens.
For what tools we have provided, since revolution shall remain in the air for perhaps the rest of time, it is on our dime that we properly use encouragement, action, and activism in whichever realm we can provide it.
-
She concludes: there is not much the individual can do under the current system besides from speculating on the most effective form of utopian revolution. It forces one to confront the question: is one willing to dedicate themselves to the limits of liberation and freedom through autonomy and control over one’s means?
“Against the subordination of individuals to the collectivity, one begins by refusing to subordinate one’s own destiny to the course of history.”

The FRAGMENTS, 1933-1938, include some scattered papers: the first describing the state of the proletariat revolution 50 years after the death of Marx which remains desolate and hopeless; the second directing the question of whether a technique without exploitation is possible to an answer provided with scientific accuracy and attention to analyzing systems of power properly; the third advocates for the distinguishing of complaints from genuine antagonisms in labor, warning the effects of directing attention to 'purely imaginative entities' that come with the simple existence of oppression, directing attention to how oppression can instead be minimized instead of eradicated with pettiness and prejudice; the fourth describes how the Marxist doctrine indirectly created the class it meant to destroy, used more as an instrument for the bourgeoise bureaucracy rather than any true revolutionary interests.
-
These fragments also contain three essays. The first is the Critical Examination of the Ideas of the Revolution and Progress, a great text stating all revolutions as self-defeating. It claims successful revolutions only come about at the spur of the moment and fade just as instantly. The study of history is a vague notion, Weil asserts, a study more commonly misread, misinterpreted, and misused by false prophets. Even Marxism is guilty of this, of blind historicist determinism backed by everything but science, a miracle more than anything serious.
-
The second essay, Meditation on Obedience and Liberty, contains a lot of the sentiments and material expanded upon from the previous sections such as the main messages of The Causes of Liberty and Social Oppression, stating 'it is only possible to establish cohesion between a limited number of men.' Weil agrees with the assertion: all possible systems and social orders are evil.
-
The third, On the Contradictions of Marx, can be contained in Weil's exclamation: "What a gap!" She criticizes the Marxist doctrine's lack of method. In the same fashion as when flipping Hegelian dialectics he did with the scientific method, creating a backwards method that relied on extrapolation and hope more than anything scientific. Weil does grant him two achievements: the social idea and a methodical formula of analyzing history; even if this method has no application in guaranteeing a successful revolution, it outlined and established capitalism, its issues, with a method of analysis useful to sociology. Marx did not understand, however, that a capitalist system or any State machine cannot exist without oppressive and evil motivations by its proprietors; this is obviously no setting for a revolution, yet Marx thought the opposite: 'he thought this system was ripe for revolution'. She also belittles him for somehow missing the issue of war, which not only became tied with the economy with the progression of nations but became an integral part of a nation's wealth, its growth, and security.
In a nihilistic way Weil describes the current situation for revolutionaries as desolate, the Taylor system successfully monopolizing every conscious pragmatic thought, each thought a blow to the existence of the skilled workman, diminishing recognition for the working class ever so slightly, faster than ever. "As for those who want to think and love, and to transpose in all purity to political action what their mind and heart inspire them with, they can only perish murdered, vilified by their death by history."

The second set of fragments form the penultimate section, entitled LONDON, 1943 and composed of three fragments found on her desk found at the time of her death. The first contains a chuckle at Marx's materialist belief like that of Hegel and Plato before him, matter indefinitely reaching towards a good. She also amused herself at Marx's idea that a proletariat with no force would somehow overtake the total force of the State apparatus as long as establish a system with no oppression despite inheriting the capitalist system. “When force changes hands, it still remains a relationship between stronger and weaker, a relation of dominance. It can go on changing hands indefinitely, without a single term of relation being eliminated.”
-
The second fragment contains Weil's admirations and disdains for aspects of Marx's thought. She admires his defining of social relationships, definition of wage-earning as slavery, definition of workers oppressed under a capitalist system, establishing the State as always against popular interest, and predicting the bureaucratization and centralization of the State would bring together political and economic leaders inevitably leading to the State machine's creation. She shares her contempt for his assumption that the extremely inferior proletariat would somehow overcome the State machine, the assumption that private poverty created class exploitation, his silence regarding how to use his historical method when applied to history for which he provided none in his lifetime, the assumption that proletariat movements wouldn't have internal conflict severing the possibility of progress, and of course his forgetfulness about the war factor.
She writes that Marx’s doctrine, though unintentionally, enabled industrialists and motivated economists to execute the exact opposite of what Marx had spent so much of his life developing. It was bound to engrave his name in the annals of history, but at the cost of many lives and much vain bloodshed at the hands of incomplete and misleading theory.
Weil compares the philosophy of Plato and Christianity, both of them implicating society as a sort of ‘beast to which men are enslaved to unless freed by the supernatural operation of grace’. This is why historical materialism works so well, acting almost as the Bible for those who worship science and justice: “The description of human societies purely in terms of the relationship of force accounts for almost everything, only leaving out the supernatural.” We are forever pulled by the necessity of force to be used and abused which forces man ‘to become merely a slave and command wherever he has the power to do so.’ She states: “We have forgotten the existence of the divine order of the universe."

The last section IS THERE A MARXIST DOCTRINE? outlines a further extends our comprehension of Weil's criticism of Marx and his doctrine. She describes his estrangement from the philosophy of labor to his more suitable materialism which in/directly led him towards the path of utopian socialism and false science where his thought withered. She once again admires his method and analysis of social oppression under capitalist systems, yet his forces were nonetheless based on historic prophecy with the assistance of scientific extrapolation that fueled the empty thought of a social revolution.

Full notes:Notes and Commentary on Simone Weil's Oppression and Liberty

[Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I don't necessarily agree with everything she says in the text, I love her reasoning. With some philosophy texts I get the feeling that the writer has never troubled themselves to actually apply their theory to the world around them; Weil, by contrast, interests herself with looking at the evidence presented to her through the world. The only issue I had with it was towards the end, where she justified her points by making claims about god without ever explaining these claims. This I shall forgive, since the work is clearly unfinished, and perhaps she owuld have explained herself more, had she been given the time. I probably should have red the communist manifesto first, so that I was more familiar with it, so that I could decide whether her criticisms are fair...

[Josh Wade · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is by far the most impressive brief analysis of revolution, Marxist thought, and the possibility, or lack thereof, of social change I have read in a long time. It is worthy of a much longer review which I'll write in the next few days. I am really glad I grabbed this book on a whim. I've heard of Simone Weil but until now my knowledge of her political thought was non-existent.

[Francesca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spunti interessantissimi in questo testo, validi anche nel contesto attuale di smarrimento e caos generale.

[diego ✨]

"El hombre no tiene nada esencialmente individual, no tiene nada que le sea absolutamente propio, salvo la facultad de pensar; y esta sociedad, de la que depende estrechamente a cada instante de su existencia, depende a su vez, recíprocamente, un poco de él, desde el momento en que necesita que él la piense, porque todo lo demás puede imponerse desde fuera por la fuerza, incluidos los movimientos del cuerpo, pero nada en el mundo puede forzar a un hombre a ejercer su poder de pensamiento, ni robarle el control de su propio pensamiento".

[izad · Rating 2 out of 5]

No me ha gustado mucho. Creo que tiene un discurso naive, burgués y contradictorio, por momentos me parece idealista, por momentos me parece materialista; matemáticas no, ciencia si; critica el comunismo, y el capitalismo; empatiza con opresoras y con oprimidas; es pro-individualismo (?); de repente cree en la idea de genia, y luego reconoce que no se llega hasta un ingenio sola... Me falta profundidad, echo de menos alternativas, y me sobra crítica.

PD: Empecé mal porque no soporto los libros cortos con sucinta introducción.

[Sam McCabe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably give it a 3.5 only cause she’s talking about specific historical economic things that I’m not familiar with as of this moment. Will probably revisit in the future though.

[Paulla Ferreira Pinto]

Em processo de digestão.

[Nafiseh]

تف بر تو اي آزادي، اف بر تو اي زيبا كه زيبايي ميبلعي و خون ميريزي. تو آه ،تو جان، تو درد ميطلبي و لابه لاي عشوه هاي هزار رنگت براي ما روان هاي فرو پاشيده ي خاور ميانه اي دست هاي خونينت رو در سمت غلط و غليظ سياهي به نشونه ي تهديد يا فرصت يا اعدام یا شکنجه یا تحقیر یا تعليق يا تحریم یا هجوم یا ارعاب يا رهايي يا سركوب يا زندگي يا مرگ يا پرده های آخر هزاران بار فروریخته ی انقلاب هاي خونین يا تكرار دهشتناك تاريخ يا هر كوفت بي سرانجام ديگه اي تكون ميدي. داري به چي اشاره ميكني ؟ بيا ، براي تو ،همه ش مال خودت .تف بر تو ای آزادي، تو با تمام ديكتاتورها و ابر قدرت هاي اين جهان به در نخور دوزاري هم دست و شريكي، تو توي آغوش كثيف و روسپی تباهي ها به ما كه بي آغوش تر از هميشه ايم بارها و بارها و بارها و بارها و لعنت بارها خيانت ميكني .اف بر تو ای آزادي.

«عیسی برای آنها مثلی دیگر آورد :پادشاهی آسمان، همچون دانه ی خردلی ست که کسی آنرا گرفت و در مزرعه اش کاشت. با اینکه دانه ی خردل از همه ی دانه ها کوچکتر است، اما چون می روید بزرگتر از همه ی گیاهان باغ شده، به درختی بدل میشود ، چندان که پرندگان آسمان آمده ، در شاخه هایش آشیانه می سازند»
متی باب ۱۳ ،آیه ۳۲-۳۱

https://youtu.be/VGirvgDjKpI?si=gx-Cl...



ببخشيد شرحي در مورد كتاب ندارم چرا كه اين بيرون به مراتب بن بست تر و رقت انگيز تر و پيچيده تر از روايت كتابه، چرا كه "دردي ست كه تا خدا بر جا خواهد ماند."چرا كه اصلن آزادي به چه معناست؟

[Beatriz · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Em tal situação, que resta fazer àqueles que se obstinam ainda, contra tudo e todos, em respeitar a dignidade humana neles próprios e nos outros? Nada, a não ser esforçar-se um pouco por interferir nos mecanismos da máquina que nos destrói; aproveitar todas as ocasiões de suscitar o pensamento, onde quer que tal seja possível; favorecer tudo aquilo que, no domínio da política, da economia ou da técnica, é suscetível de oferecer ao indivíduo uma certa liberdade de movimentos adentro das peias de que o rodeia a organização social."

[Angie Del Castillo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brillante ensayo sobre los cimientos de la opresión, la máquina social, la moneda, entre 0tras; grosso modo, un análisis de la problemática inherente al sistema capitalista a la vez que cuestiona la potencialidad predictiva sobre la teoría marxista. En conjunto, escrito y explicado de forma muy coherente, lo que permite ver la alta capacidad de razonamiento de la autora, así como su profunda conexión con el sufrimiento ajeno.

[gretafasurf ꩜ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lettura illuminante e molto stimolante, riflessioni molto attuali anche per il nostro tempo. Un primo approccio a Simone Weil che me l'ha sicuramente fatta apprezzare molto 🧚🏻‍♀️💗

[Obeida Takriti · Rating 5 out of 5]

لا يزال لدينا الكثير لنفهمه عن القمع والحرية..
بمقالات نقدية وفلسفية، تعطينا الكاتبة نظرة جديدة للمجتمع..
كما ترسم بعض الملامح للتغيير..

[Noèlia · Rating 4 out of 5]

«Todo lo que normalmente parece constituir una razón para vivir se desvanece»

[Colette · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pas été très concentrée (pour cause de plage et famille), mais je suis globalement déçue, je m'attendais à beaucoup. Il y a des choses qui me parlent (la critique des mots magiques du marxisme, des systèmes centralisés et déréalisés par exemple, la réflexion sur l'utopie), mais aussi d'autres où je suis totalement pas d'accord (sa manière de présenter l'intérêt des sciences, le défaitisme proclamé quant aux possibilités de résistance ou de protestation contre les oppressions). Je pense que je suis passée à côté du texte. Je n'ai pas du tout compris comment elle défendait quelque chose de commun alors qu'il m'a semblé que tout était hyper individualiste pour finir ; ou comment elle pouvait être moins idéaliste que les marxistes qu'elle critique, alors que l'idée de société juste qu'elle présente est hyper idéaliste ; ou comment elle défendait une forme de lutte politique alors que j'ai surtout lu l'idée qu'il était inutile de lutter.

Moi j'étais fascinée a priori par la personne qui donnait tous ses sous aux pauvres et qui pleurait sur les sorts des malheureux (la chrétienne en moi I guess), je m'attendais à une réflexion intéressante sur les questions morales, et je voulais quelque chose qui me permette de penser à côté ou contre le côté bourge de Beauvoir, plus radicale, et en fait je découvre une pensée surtout chrétienne, mais dans le sens de l'abandon et de la défaite. J'ai l'impression d'avoir lu un texte m'expliquant, par des démonstrations un peu pétées, pourquoi il était inutile de protester contre les inégalités.

J'y reviendrai sans doute pour me refaire un autre avis après lecture plus concentrée...

[Nil Codina · Rating 5 out of 5]

"La complète subordination de l'ouvrier à l'enterprise et à ceux qui la dirigent repose sur la structure de l'usine et non sur le régime de la propriété".

"Les intellectuels ont malheureusement les mêmes privilèges dans le mouvement ouvrier que dans la société bourgeoise".

"Toutes les religions font de l'homme un simple instrument de la Providence, et le socialisme lui aussi met les hommes au service du progrès historique, c'est-à-dire du progrès de la production".

Sobre la tasca de dignificar el treball superant la divisió de l'especialització, crítica al marxisme com a religió del creixement i contra la pèrdua de la llibertat individual davant la col•lectivitat -i segur que moltes altres coses més que no sé explicar:) M'ha fascinat com d'actual és en una economia terciaritzada com la nostra (malgrat el text té 90 anys!)

[misael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Como claramente o entendeu Marx em relação ao capitalismo, como alguns moralistas o constataram de modo mais geral, o poder encerra como que uma espécie de fatalidade, que pesa tão impiedosamente sobre aqueles que comandam como sobre aqueles que obedecem; é ainda na medida em que esse mesmo poder escraviza os primeiros que vem abater-se sobre os segundos. [...] Conservar o poder é, para os poderosos, uma necessidade vital, pois que é tal poder que os alimenta; é-lhes necessário conservá-lo não só contra os seus rivais, como contra os seus inferiores, aos quais é impossível não tentar desembaraçar-se de perigosos senhores; pois, em ciclo vicioso, o senhor é temido pelo escravo apenas porque este o teme, e o mesmo se verifica reciprocamente entre poderes rivais.

[Olivia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Simone Weil gibt sich sichtlich große Mühe, die Arbeiterklasse zu verstehen, versagt dabei aber im Verlauf des Buchen so sehr, dass es weh tut. Sie beschreibt den Zustand de Arbeiter zwar ziemlich treffend, scheitert aber darin, auch nur irgendeinen sinnvollen Schluss daraus zu ziehen. Sie verfängt sich in einer Sackgasse, die weder Reform noch Revolution zulässt und will stattdessen nach einem höhergestellten Ideal suchen, das der Arbeiterklasse den Weg aus ihrer Lage weisen soll. Blöderweise ist dieses Ideal für den Menschen wahrscheinlich gar nicht zugänglich.

Am Ende findet sie sogar noch eine Lösung: Spirituelles Arbeiten. Was das heißen soll und wie es funktioniert bleibt offen.

Dieses Buch ist eine beispiellose Zeitverschwendung.

[pat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Que esta obra se escribiese hace casi 100 años me fascina y me entristece a la vez porque seguimos en las mismas: generaciones sin futuro, un imaginario todavía más intrincado del poder así como de su fuerza opresiva, siempre aplicando “un cierto límite de violencia” para no tambalearse. Muy clarificador para entender porque no avanzamos, creando una vibra tan deprimente que te dan ganas de chillar. Lectura obligatoria