بؤس الفلسفة: رد على فلسفة البؤس لبرودون

by Karl Marx, كارل ماركس

يقول فريدريك انجلز في المقدمة التي سطرها حول بؤس الفلسفة بأن هذا الكتاب أُنْجز شتاء 1846-1847 في زمن أوضح فيه ماركس لنفسه السمات الأساسية لنظرته الاقتصادية التاريخية الجديدة، والكتاب هو رد على كتاب "برودون" "نظام التناقضات الاقتصادية أو فلسفة البؤس" والذي ظهر في ذلك الحين، وهو الكتاب الذي أتاح لماركس أن يطوّر هذه السمات الأساسية، بمعارضتها لآراء رجل كان يشغل منذئذ المركز الرقيب بين الاشتراكيين الفرنسيين الأحياء، وقد كان الرجلان يطويان في باريس الليالي بكاملها يناقشان المسائل الاقتصادية، اختلف منحهما أكثر فأكثر وتعارضا، وقد أثبت كتاب يرودون أن ليس ثمة معبر يصل بينهما، ولم يكن من الممكن يومها تجاهل الكتاب، وهكذا يسجل ماركس بهذا الرد الذي وضعه الصدع الذي لا يرأب بينهما، ورأي ماركس العام في برودون موجود في المقالة الملحقة في هذا الكتاب الذي شغل بالنسبة لألمانيا أهمية لم يتنبأ بها ماركس نفسه، إذ إنه كيف استطاع ماركس أن يعرف أنه بإنزاله الهزيمة ببردون كان يضرب "روديرتوس" قناصي المناصب في هذا العصر، الذي لم يكن اسمه الرفيع وقتئذ معروفاً من قبل ماركس، بالعودة إلى محتويات الكتاب فقد شمل مقدمة "فزيدريك أنجلز" التي منها استقينا تلك اللمحة الموجزة عن الكتاب وأتبع ذلك بتمهيد وفصلين، حمل أولهما عنوان اكتشاف علمي وناقش من خلاله ماركس كل التناقض بين القيمة الاستعمالية والقيمة التبادلية، القيمة التأسيسة أو القيمة التركيبة، تطبيق قانون نسبية القيمة الذي شمل كل من النقد والعمل الزائد. وحمل الفصل الثاني عنوان متيافيزياء الاقتصاد السياسي الذي من خلاله شرح طريقة برودون على ضوء سبع ملاحظات وضعها لهذا الشأن مناقشاً بعد ذلك كل من الآلة وتقسيم العمل، المنافسة والاحتكار، الملكية والريع العقاري، الإضرابات واتحادات العمال.

وقد ضم الكتاب إضافتان كملحق صفحة من كتاب ماركس (مساهمة في نقد الاقتصاد السياسي) برلين عام 1859 يعالج طوباوية جون غراي الأولى في تبادل النقد العملي، ترجمة لخطاب ماركس حول التجارة الحرة في بروكسل عام 1848، ويعود هذا الخطاب، مثل "بؤس الفلسفة" إلى الفترة نفسها من تطور المؤلف، بالإضافة إلى رسالتين الأولى من ماركس إلى اننكوف والثانية من ماركس إلى شويتز.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, Theory, Sociology, German Literature

319 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1847

About the author

With the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.

German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.

Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).

The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.

Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.

Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.

Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.

Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .

People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.

Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 2 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، به نظرِ من، در این کتاب «مارکس» فقط و فقط تلاش کرده تا نظریاتِ اقتصادیِ «ژوزف پرودون» اقتصاد دان و جامعه شناسِ فرانسوی را زیر سوال ببرد... چراکه پرودون باور داشت انقلاب هایِ کارگری چیزی را تغییر نمیدهد.. کارگر پس از انقلاب شاید دستمزدش تغییر کند، ولی همان کارگر باقی میماند و کارخانه دار نیز همان کارخانه دار باقی خواهد ماند.. پرودون بر این باور بود که در زمانِ هرج و مرج و یا انقلاب، تولید کاهش می یابد و قیمتها به دلیلِ کاهشِ عرضه، افزایش می یابد و این به زیانِ قشرِ کارگر است و آنکه سرمایه دار و کارخانه دار است، همچون کارگر زیان نمیبیند.. ولی مارکس چنین نظری نداشت و خودتان بهتر میدانید که نظرش در موردِ انقلابهایِ کارگری چه بوده است
‎همین موضوع باعث شده تا هرآنچه را که پرودون در موردِ آن نوشته و هرزگاهی ادعا کرده که آن را کشف کرده است، مارکس به آن حمله کرده و به دنبالِ اشتباهاتِ آن بوده و اصرار دارد که پیش از پرودون نیز کسانی بوده اند که در موردِ فلان موضوع (مثلاً ارزشِ نسبی در اقتصاد و تولید و مبادلهٔ کالاها) نوشته و سخن گفته اند.. به عنوان مثال، مارکس باور دارد که پرودون اکثرِ نظریاتش را از «دیوید ریکاردو» اقتصاددانِ انگلیسی کپی برداری کرده است
---------------------------------------
‎جملاتی از این کتاب
+++++++++++
‎محصولی که عرضه میشود، فی نفسه چیزِ سودمندی نیست. این مصرف کننده است که سودمند بودنِ آن را تعیین میکند و حتی اگر خصلتِ سودمندی را برایِ آن قائل شویم، باز هم به معنیِ واقعیِ کلمه بیانگرِ سودمندی آن نمیباشد.. در جریانِ تولید، مبادله به ازایِ همهٔ مخارجِ تولید، یعنی به ازایِ موادِ خام، دستمزدها و غیره و بطورِ کلی همهٔ چیزهایی که دارایِ ارزشِ تجاری میباشند، صورت میگیرد.. به این ترتیب، محصول از دیدگاهِ تولیدکننده، نمایندهٔ مجموعهٔ ارزش هایِ تجاری است و آن چه او عرضه میکند، تنها یک شئ سودمند نیست، بلکه بیش از هرچیز در واقع یک ارزشِ مبادله میباشد
************************
‎در اکثرِ موارد، نیازمندی ها، از تولید و یا از موقعیتِ عمومی که بر تولید متکی میباشد، نشأت میگیرند. داد و ستدِ جهانی، منحصراً بر محورِ نیازمندی هایِ تولید میچرخد و نه نیازمندی هایِ مصرفِ فردی
---------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
‎«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[Luís · Rating 3 out of 5]

Karl Marx's "Poverty of Philosophy" critiques Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's "The Philosophy of Poverty." Marx critiques Proudhon's economics and philosophy, accusing him of idealism and overlooking the significance of material relations and class struggle. The work is also essential for presenting Marx's dialectical method and historical materialism.

[C · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first book by Marx that I cannot rank highly. Marx has a notorious reputation for belittling anarchists, and wasting too much time on responding to less worthy opponents, instead of developing his own theories. There are even rumors and notions that had Marx solely done his own work, and stopped wasting time in rhetorical matches to the philosophic death, he may have finished all his intended volumes of Capital. We’ll never know, but this is certainly one of those books that gave Marx this nasty reputation.

The first half of the book is like watching Einstein mock grade schoolers for their poor math performance. Yes, Marx is that much superior to Proudhon, but instead of merely proving him wrong, and revealing the error of his ways, perhaps even offering a helping hand and guidance, Marx proceeds to bury him six feet under, and place a dunce cap on his philosophical grave stone. In a letter to a friend Marx even remarks that this reply/book, ruined their friendship forever. Some friendship…

Economically, there’s little here that is not stated clearer, and with more depth in Capital, EP Manuscripts, and Wage Labor and Profit. Moreover, the chapters dealing with metaphysics and philosophy are very cursory glances into Marx’s clearer theory of historical materialism, as found in The German Ideology.

However the book warrants three stars for two reasons. First it dispels the myth that Marx saw history as a teleological process whereby communism was inevitable and the light at the end of the tunnel. Two, he mirrors a critique anarcho-primitivist have been moving towards (I’m thinking of Derrick Jensen, DGR, and John Zerzan).

Proudhon develops his own dialectic whereby everything in history has a good side and a bad side. Marx quips about the good side to slavery, in typical sarcasm. Proudhon also believes that the tensions between the good and the bad are inevitably leading to equality. All history for Hegel is the realization of the absolute, and for Proudhon, it’s the realization of equality. Marx spends ample time refuting this view. Thus, Marx does not see history as a trajectory towards equality as he has been accused of doing.

The second praise worth point is summed up in a quote, where Marx sees civilization as the falling point of humanity, and not its rise into progress: “The very moment civilization begins, production begins to be founded on the antagonism of orders, estates, classes, and finally on the antagonism of accumulated labor and actual labor. No antagonism, no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed up to our days. Till now the productive forces have been developed by virtue of this system of class antagonisms.”

Overall, read Marx’s other works, this isn’t a very good one. Unless you’re like me, and just want to read everything he wrote, including the lousy stuff…

[sologdin · Rating 2 out of 5]

man with unruly facial hair engages in intra-left polemic with neckbearded anarchist in deathmatch over the issue of best politico-cosmetological system.

[Yazeed AlMogren · Rating 3 out of 5]

هذا الكتاب لكارل ماركس يحمل ردود ونقاشات إقتصادية ردًا على كتاب الفرنسي بيير برودون لذا ستفقد نصف متعة الكتاب اذا لم تقرأ قبله كتاب برودون "فلسفة البؤس"، الكتاب يتحدث في نظريات إقتصادية اشتراكية

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book reminds us that Marx was not just a great philosopher and economist, but also a vindictive journalist with rivals in his own socialist camp. Most of the arguments in this book - as expanded at length in Marx's other more serious works - boil down to how the entire German ideology with its abstract and a-temporal formalism must be denounced and replaced with an historical approach, and how the mainstream economic theory was produced only to legitimize the capitalistic system.

[Kalashnikovpiti · Rating 4 out of 5]

vaya ratio le mete Marx a Proudhon

muy guay y muy sencillito y es interesante ver como Marx ya iba haciendo un primer planteamiento de sus ideas

[Jay Rothermel · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took three attempts over 30 years, but I finally read this book.

Marx is a demanding writer, and his sacbrous style here can be confusing to the inattentive reader.

His nemesis here is Proudhon, a sanctimonious middle class tinkerer who wants to bring forth a peaceful society by elimination of contradictions. "Use only the positive aspects of every economic category," is his insight.

It does not take much effort to hear such sentiments echoed more recently than Proudhon's time.

Start the book, read it straight through without underlining anything. It takes about four hours. Then go back through to highlight Marx's illuminating lightning bolts.

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

As often happens, Marx manages to clarify and explain his own theories when provoked to attack and disprove those of a rival. He demonstrates that Proudhon’s ambitious economic theory is profoundly flawed and his policy goals are self-defeating and futile. In effect, Proudhon is merely propping up the bourgeoise economic system, with its inexorable logic of capital accumulation in the face of competitive forces, while Proudhon’s egalitarian ideals, if implemented, would impoverish workers and reduce their wages to a minimum needed for subsistence. In making these arguments, Marx sets out in some detail his own model of bourgeoise economics, its history and its likely future development, with frequent quotes from or references to impeccable sources in classical economic theory. Marx argues that the utopian ideals of contemporary socialists like Proudhon were destined to fail, but that his own approach had a scientific basis in material reality which anticipated and aspired to expedite revolutionary change. [I read this book for free on Marxists.org]

Some Quotes

Why are cotton, potatoes and spirits the pivots of bourgeois society? Because the least amount of labor is needed to produce them, and, consequently, they have the lowest price. Why does the minimum price determine the maximum consumption? Is it by any chance because of the absolute utility of these objects, their intrinsic utility, their utility insomuch as they correspond, in the most useful manner, in the needs of the worker as a man, and not to the man as a worker? No, it is because in a society founded on poverty the poorest products have the fatal prerogative of being used by the greatest number. To say now that because the least costly things are in greater use, they must be of greater utility, is saying that the wide use of spirits, because of their low cost of production, is the most conclusive proof of their utility; it is telling the proletarian that potatoes are more wholesome for him than meat; it is accepting the present state of affairs; it is, in short, making an apology, with M. Proudhon, for a society without understanding it.

In English society the working day thus acquired in 70 years a surplus of 2,700 per cent productivity; that is, in 1840 it produced 27 times as much as in 1770. According to M. Proudhon, the following question should be raised: why was not the English worker of 1840 27 times as rich as the one of 1770? In raising such a question one would naturally be supposing that the English could have produced this wealth without the historical conditions in which it was produced, such as: private accumulation of capital, modern division of labour, automatic workshops, anarchical competition, the wage system – in short, everything that is based upon class antagonism. Now, these were precisely the necessary conditions of existence for the development of productive forces and of surplus labour. Therefore, to obtain this development of productive forces and this surplus labour, there had to be classes which profited and classes which decayed.
What then, ultimately, is this Prometheus resuscitated by M. Proudhon? It is society, social relations based on class antagonism. These relations are not relations between individual and individual, but between worker and capitalist, between farmer and landlord, etc. Wipe out these relations and you annihilate all society, and your Prometheus is nothing but a ghost without arms or legs; that is, without automatic workshops, without division of labour – in a word, without everything that you gave him to start with in order to make him obtain this surplus labour.

If there were anything to be condemned, it would surely be the system of M. Proudhon, who would reduce the worker, as we have shown, to the minimum wage, in spite of the increase of wealth. It is only by reducing the worker to the minimum wage that he would be able to apply the true proportion of values, of “value constituted” by labour time. It is because wages, as a result of competition, oscillate now above, now below, the price of food necessary for the sustenance of the worker, that he can participate to a certain extent in the development of collective wealth, and can also perish from want. This is the whole theory of the economists who have no illusions on the subject.

Here we are, right in Germany! We shall now have to talk metaphysics while talking political economy. ... If the Englishman transforms men into hats, the German transforms hats into ideas. The Englishman is Ricardo, rich banker and distinguished economist; the German is Hegel, simple professor at the University of Berlin. Now metaphysics – indeed all philosophy – can be summed up, according to Hegel, in method.

Economists have a singular method of procedure. There are only two kinds of institutions for them, artificial and natural. The institutions of feudalism are artificial institutions, those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. In this, they resemble the theologians, who likewise establish two kinds of religion. Every religion which is not theirs is an invention of men, while their own is an emanation from God. When the economists say that present-day relations – the relations of bourgeois production – are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature. These relations therefore are themselves natural laws independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus, there has been history, but there is no longer any. There has been history, since there were the institutions of feudalism, and in these institutions of feudalism we find quite different relations of production from those of bourgeois society, which the economists try to pass off as natural and as such, eternal.

If, during the epoch of the domination of feudalism, the economists, enthusiastic over the knightly virtues, the beautiful harmony between rights and duties, the patriarchal life of the towns, the prosperous condition of domestic industry in the countryside, the development of industry organized into corporations, guilds and fraternities, in short, everything that constitutes the good side of feudalism, had set themselves the problem of eliminating everything that cast a shadow on the picture – serfdom, privileges, anarchy – what would have happened? All the elements which called forth the struggle would have been destroyed, and the development of the bourgeoisie nipped in the bud. One would have set oneself the absurd problem of eliminating history.

The more the antagonistic character comes to light, the more the economists, the scientific representatives of bourgeois production, find themselves in conflict with their own theory; and different schools arise. We have the fatalist economists, who in their theory are as indifferent to what they call the drawbacks of bourgeois production as the bourgeois themselves are in practice to the sufferings of the proletarians who help them to acquire wealth. ..... Economists like Adam Smith and Ricardo, who are the historians of this epoch, … The romantics belong to our own age, in which the bourgeoisie is in direct opposition to the proletariat; in which poverty is engendered in as great abundance as wealth. The economists now pose as blasé fatalists, who, from their elevated position, cast a proudly disdainful glance at the human machines who manufacture wealth.... Next comes the humanitarian school, which sympathizes with the bad side of present-day production relations. It seeks, by way of easing its conscience, to palliate even if slightly the real contrasts; it sincerely deplores the distress of the proletariat, the unbridled competition of the bourgeois among themselves; it counsels the workers to be sober, to work hard and to have few children; it advises the bourgeois to put a reasoned ardor into production. …The philanthropic school is the humanitarian school carried to perfection. It denies the necessity of antagonism; it wants to turn all men into bourgeois; it wants to realize theory in so far as it is distinguished from practice and contains no antagonism...They think they are seriously fighting bourgeois practice, and they are more bourgeois than the others.
Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class. So long as the proletariat is not yet sufficiently developed to constitute itself as a class, and consequently so long as the struggle itself of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie has not yet assumed a political character, and the productive forces are not yet sufficiently developed in the bosom of the bourgeoisie itself to enable us to catch a glimpse of the material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat and for the formation of a new society, these theoreticians are merely utopians who, to meet the wants of the oppressed classes, improvise systems and go in search of a regenerating science. But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece. So long as they look for science and merely make systems, so long as they are at the beginning of the struggle, they see in poverty nothing but poverty, without seeing in it the revolutionary, subversive side, which will overthrow the old society. From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.
-------


The first attempt of workers to associate among themselves always takes place in the form of combinations… Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their interests. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance – combination. Thus combination always has a double aim, that of stopping competition among the workers, so that they can carry on general competition with the capitalist....

Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The combination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle, of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests. But the struggle of class against class is a political struggle.

In the bourgeoisie we have two phases to distinguish: that in which it constituted itself as a class under the regime of feudalism and absolute monarchy, and that in which, already constituted as a class, it overthrew feudalism and monarchy to make society into a bourgeois society. Much research has been carried out to trace the different historical phases that the bourgeoisie has passed through, from the commune up to its constitution as a class…. But when it is a question of making a precise study of strikes, combinations and other forms in which the proletarians carry out before our eyes their organization as a class, some are seized with real fear and others display a transcendental disdain.

Meanwhile the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle of class against class, a struggle which carried to its highest expression is a total revolution. Indeed, is it at all surprising that a society founded on the opposition of classes should culminate in brutal contradiction, the shock of body against body, as its final denouement? … Do not say that social movement excludes political movement. There is never a political movement which is not at the same time social. … It is only in an order of things in which there are no more classes and class antagonisms that social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions. Till then, on the eve of every general reshuffling of society, the last word of social science will always be: “Le combat ou la mort; la lutte sanguinaire ou le neant. C’est ainsi que la quéstion est invinciblement posée.”

[مجید اسطیری · Rating 2 out of 5]

هم کتاب خوبی برای آشنایی و شروع مطالعه از مارکس نیست، هم اساسا کتاب خوبی نیست. چون مارکس مدام مثل یک روزنامه‌نگار بی ظرفیت فقط به نظرات اقتصاددانی به نام «پرودون» حمله می‌کند و از زمین و آسمان آیه نازل می‌کند و همه احادیث اقتصاددانان دیگر را گواه می‌آورد که پرودون مطلقا همه جا اشتباه کرده. واقعاً به زحمت می‌توان در هر ده صفحه، ده خط نظرات مستقل خود مارکس را پیدا کرد.

البته اصل دعوا که قابل تأمل است بر سر این است که پرودون «قیمت تعیین شده» را یک اصل برای اقتصاد مبتنی بر داد و ستد کالا می‌داند و مارکس پافشاری می‌کند قیمت کالا را فقط «مدت زمان» صرف شده برای تولید آن مشخص می‌کند.

نه تنها واضح است که هر دو نظر اشتباه است، که واضح است تاریخ مصرف کتاب تمام شده و در عصر کالاهای دیجیتال قوانین بازار اساسا دیگرگون شده‌اند. مثال‌های مارکس هم فقط حول و حوش تولید پارچه کتان و شال کشمیر و اینهاست.

[mohab samir · Rating 4 out of 5]

ان وجه الخلاف الأول والأساسى بين ماركس وبرودون هو العمل الثورى إذ يرى ماركس أن الإشتراكى أو الشيوعى لابد ان يتبنى الفكر الثورى الهادف للتغيير الفعلى بالوسائل المادية على عكس برودون الإشتراكى الفرنسى المثالى المتشبه والمتشبث بفكر الألمان النظرى والمجرد عن العمل ونظرا لمثاليته فإنه يريد أن يعمل ضد المصالح البرجوازية - ظاهريا - ولصالح البروليتاريا بالطرق السلمية المبتكرة من جانبه . فهو يدعى انه قد تخطى وتجاوز بفكره تناقضات الوضع الاقتصادى الحالى والذى يلقى بعبىء السوق تماما على عاتق العامل . وهنا نجد الى جانب نقد ماركس لحلول برودون المبتذلة والغير عملية وتحليلاته الغير علمية نجد عداوة ماركس للتفكير المثالى الذى يرى أن تابعه لا يمكنه الا ان يملك العدم بين يديه اذ يبذر جهوده محاولا الامساك بالهواء .
ولهذا فعندما يتناول ماركس كتاب برودون فلسفة البؤس بالنقد اللاذع فهو يرى خطورة استمرار هذه الأفكار العاجزة على تقدم الحركة الاجتماعية وتحقيق مصالح الجماهير التى لا تُكتسب الا بالعمل الثورى واستئصال شأفة البرجوازية بما هى نظام اجتماعى عام قائم على لاتساوى البشر وعنده أن برودون عندما يتظاهر بصداقته للجماهير فإنه فى الواقع يضللها وعندما يرى أنه وجد الحل الفعلى لحل التناقضات الصارخة للنظام الاقتصادى البرجوازى الرأسمالى فإنه لا يجد الا الوهم لانه يتمسك بفعالية المقولات والمسميات ويرسم تخيلا ذهنيا ساذجا للصراع بين المقولات المتناقضة او يرسم كيفية تولد نقيضة من مقولة ما ولا يرى حلا اكثر واقعية من ايجاد اى مسمى ايحائى يعتبر حلقة الوصل أونقطة الاتزان او الوحدة التركيبية لكلا النقيضين اى ان حلول المشاكل الاقتصادية فى الواقع لا توجد بالعمل على علاجها بالطريقة المناسبة بل فقط بتتبع الجدلية الذهنية لشخصه . وهو ما يجعل ماركس يمضى فى السخرية منه وازدراؤه كفيلسوف او كإقتصادى مزيف إلى أقصى حد فيقلب عليه إسم كتابه من فلسفة البؤس ليجعل فلسفة برودون كصورة واضحة لبؤس الفلسفة .

[David]

Many seem quick to avoid this work as it is perceived as a general attack by Marx upon all anarchists. A reading of the text quickly proves this is not the case. Much of the dispute Marx has with Proudhon is rooted in Proudhon's misconception of political economy and claims of original thought that were really just disguised or renamed variations of thought espoused by the various English political economists.

Much of the value of this work comes from Marx's explanation of his early conception of dialectics, and the negation of the negation, as well as his historical theory of the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

[Pablo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Respuesta de Marx a la Filosofía de la Miseria de Proudhon. Usa su típica prosa ácida e ironica contra las reflexiones del filósofo anarquista. Interesante texto de economía y filosofia, marcando las lineas generales de Marx respecto a su gran sistema que despues desarrollaría completamente.
Un buen libro para introducirse a este autor.

[Marawan Awad · Rating 3 out of 5]

كان يجب أن أقرا الفهرس أو المقدمة قبل شراء الكتاب !

يبتعد الكتاب عن معنا عنوانه المباشر .... توقعته أنه يتناول مسائل فلسفية غالبا وجودية او ربما ابستمولوجية ....
إلا أنه كان ردا على كتاب فلسفة البؤس ... و الذي تستطيع بعد 30 صفحة من قراءتك للكتاب ان تسفه من بردون صاحب فلسفة البؤس ....

كتاب يتناول مسال اقتصادية عن الطبقات العمالية و الأجور و استراتيجية تسعير المنتجات و مسألة دخول الميكنة بدل الأيدي العاملة ...
و بالطبع الصراع الطبقي و التصادم مع الرأسمالية كفكر و منهجية و تلميع -في ال��قابل- الاشتراكية (المراكسية) ...

الكتاب جيد مواضيعه غير ممسوسة فقط لعصرنا و الكتابات الاحدث ستكون اوقع .... و لكن لابد من المرور على هذا الكتاب الصغير في دراستك لماركس الاعظم !

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point is to change it.

[Said · Rating 2 out of 5]

I must read this book : https://goo.gl/obvp37

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 1 out of 5]

Back in 2001–2002, I would have defended The Poverty of Philosophy like it was gospel — probably while waving a dog-eared copy around in the Coffee House and feeling far too clever for my own good.

By 2010, the romance had burned out, the ideological glow had dimmed, and I had to admit it: Marxism, even in its literary form, was a fairy tale — a gripping one, but still a fairy tale. And nowhere is that clearer than in this little grenade of a book Marx lobbed at Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1847.

Reading it now, you can’t help but feel Marx was less interested in dismantling bad arguments than in staging a one-man demolition derby.

The tone is pure “angry Twitter thread before Twitter existed”: personal jabs, sarcastic asides, mockery delivered with the smugness of a man who has already decided he is The Smartest Person in the Room™. If Proudhon’s Philosophy of Poverty is a politely furnished salon, Marx’s rebuttal is a barroom brawl with footnotes.

The first sin? Misrepresentation. Marx doesn’t so much respond to Proudhon as he builds a papier-mâché Proudhon-shaped punching bag and wails on it. Half the time, the “arguments” he dismantles are things Proudhon never actually said, or were lifted, mangled, and re-translated until they became parodies.

Nuance? Middle ground? Mutualist thought that tries to reconcile markets with social justice? Marx will have none of that — because in his dialectical sandbox, if you’re not locked in mortal class struggle, you’re basically bourgeois scum.

Then there’s the irony that keeps on giving: Marx mocks philosophy as useless abstraction, but the book is drowning in Hegelian abstractions.

It’s like someone yelling, “I hate poetry!” while delivering their complaint in rhymed couplets. The title — The Poverty of Philosophy — promises anti-philosophical, grounded clarity; what you get is page after page of theoretical hair-splitting about value, labor, and exchange that would make a first-year economics student wish for a quick, merciful blackout.

His treatment of the labor theory of value is an especially rich bit of circular reasoning. He delivers it as if it’s so self-evident only a fool could doubt it, then refuses to actually deal with counterpoints like marginal utility or fluctuating market demand. Proudhon at least tries to map theory to the real world. Marx just laughs from his ivory tower: “Prices? Ha! Just capitalist illusion!”

And let’s not forget the gatekeeping. Marx’s tone is that of an intellectual bouncer at the Revolution Club: “You don’t accept historical materialism?

Sorry, you’re not on the list.” It’s an intellectual absolutism that hints — uncomfortably — at the kind of political absolutism his later disciples would happily run with.

That’s not to say the book is entirely worthless. As an artifact of 19th-century leftist infighting, it’s pure gold.

You see the seeds of Capital in miniature, the early shape of ideas that would go on to dominate political thought for a century. If you’re a historian of ideas, it’s worth a read for that reason alone. But as an actual guide to economics or politics? It’s less a map and more a manifesto-shaped middle finger.

In the end, The Poverty of Philosophy works best as a cautionary tale: how brilliance curdles when it mistakes rhetoric for evidence, and how ideological certainty can turn a sharp mind into a blunt instrument.

Back in my early twenties, I might have cheered it on.

Now, I see it for what it is — a beautifully written, intellectually flashy, but ultimately self-defeating polemic that makes a better museum piece than a manual for change.

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having read Capital, Hegel, and Proudhon beforehand probably makes my reading a bit skewed. Nevertheless, this book is generally among the worst I’ve read by Marx. His method is split into two; on the one hand, he argues according to a Feuerbachian schema (like in 1844 Manuscripts) where appearance and essence are opposed to each other while on the other hand Marx follows a more dialectical logic where concepts have history and dialectical tension embedded in them (like Capital).

This makes this work interesting to follow Marx’s intellectual development, but his arrogance is absolutely ridiculous. While Proudhon’s mistakes are real, Marx’s extreme attachment to a one-sided model of social theory here is not among his best. He continually opposes the false to the true, the appearance to essence, ironically mimicking what he finds lacking in Proudhon (except without “equilibrium.” While niche, Marx likewise gives a suspect review of Hegel’s “Logic,” using the word “synthesis” to describe a concept Hegel does not once use in the entire book. It ends up feeling like a text where Marx is saying he has read “more” than Proudhon, but not necessarily that he has any clear idea of what he is doing (the only major positive are some excellent quotes critiquing human nature and his section on rent, which is somehow clearer than Volume 3).

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

marx really takes proudhon to task for the latter's vulgarised hegelian idealist schema in which economic categories are always already developed to their fullest expression in the realm of ideas without any traffic with materiality. in proudhon there's only abstract logical movement from one category to the next and the real movement in history is relegated to an epiphenomenal role. but in order to explain one category proudhon is compelled to posit the rest of the system of contradiction simultaneously. this book is also a serviceable textual evidence against those who leverage the charge of "totalizing historicism" against marx

[Naele]

به قول خود مارکس نام کتاب ربطی به مضمون نداره و همین عصبیم کرد. انتظار داشتم چیزی با مضمون فقر فلسفه بخونم که با یه کتاب انتقادی روبرو شدم.

[Vittorio Ducoli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un altro tassello del Marx prima del Capitale

La Miseria della Filosofia occupa un posto particolare nell'evoluzione del pensiero di Karl Marx: è infatti il primo testo in cui lo studio dell'economia politica e degli economisti classici in particolare costituisce la base conoscitiva per sostanziare la radicale critica della società borghese che sino ad allora era stata condotta dal pensatore di Treviri su presupposti quasi esclusivamente “filosofici”.
Per la verità già in alcuni scritti di qualche anno prima, i famosi Manoscritti Economico-Filosofici del 1844 Marx si era occupato specificamente di questioni quali salario, profitto e rendita fondiaria, e già quegli scritti frammentari dovevano costituire la base di un'ampia opera di critica dell'economia politica; nelle opere successive, tuttavia, - La sacra famiglia - Critica della critica critica e L'ideologia tedesca Marx, iniziato il sodalizio con Engels, si era concentrato sulla necessità di fare i conti con la sinistra hegeliana tedesca, con Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer e Max Stirner, in altri termini di consolidare teoreticamente il distacco dall'idealismo che con l'amico era venuto maturando sempre più dal momento dell'esilio volontario parigino.
Nei primi mesi di permanenza nella capitale francese egli conosce e frequenta tra gli altri Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, che godeva di vasta fama negli ambienti socialisti francesi per il suo saggio Q'est-ce que la propriété? nel quale esponeva la convinzione, rimasta celebre che La proprietà è un furto.
Già nei Manoscritti Marx polemizza con Proudhon, pur riconoscendogli il merito di aver posto il problema della sottrazione al lavoratore di parte del prodotto del suo lavoro da parte del capitale. Egli imputa a Proudhon di avere criticato l'economia politica dal punto di vista dell'economia politica di concepire la negazione della proprietà privata come una sua generalizzazione, di avere una prospettiva in cui l'alienazione del lavoro non viene superata ma generalizzata attraverso la trasformazione di tutti gli uomini in salariati. Questa critica permarrà, e verrà argomentata più diffusamente, anche nella Miseria delle Filosofia.
Nell'ottobre del 1846 Proudhon pubblica a Parigi la ponderosa opera Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère, che conteneva la proposta di scambiare le merci secondo il valore costituito, cioè il valore del lavoro in esse contenuto. In questo modo il lavoro sarebbe stato equamente retribuito e si sarebbe realizzata l'eguaglianza tra gli uomini. Nell'opera inoltre Proudhon si scaglia contro le prospettive rivoluzionarie e comuniste e sostiene l'inutilità, anzi, la dannosità delle lotte per il miglioramento dei salari dei lavoratori.
Marx è a Bruxelles, dove stava organizzando il primo nucleo della futura Lega dei Comunisti. Già nel febbraio del 1847 ha finito di scrivere, in francese, la sua risposta polemica a Proudhon, che uscirà nel luglio come Misère de la Philosophie. Reponse à La Philosophie de la Misère de M. Proudhon.
Già dal titolo emerge un tratto che ho fatto notare anche in precedenti recensioni delle opere marxiane: Karl Marx era anche un grande scrittore. Titoli come Critica della Critica Critica o Miseria della Filosofia. Risposta alla Filosofia della Miseria sono veri piccoli capolavori di per sé, e testimoniano di una capacità letteraria condita di una buona dose di ironia, che probabilmente gli derivava dalla sua esperienza giornalistica. Il testo conferma, sin dalla breve premessa, tale statura anche formale: pur non essendo 120 pagine di agevole lettura – dati gli argomenti trattati – il chiaro, netto e logico fluire dei ragionamenti di Marx aiuta moltissimo, e non mancano anche qui paradossi e veri e propri calembour che strappano invariabilmente il sorriso al lettore.
La Miseria della Filosofia è divisa in due grandi capitoli. Nel primo, intitolato Una scoperta scientifica, Marx demolisce i presupposti economici della teoria Proudhoniana, dimostrando in particolare che il valore costituito, sua pietra angolare, non è altro che una malintesa rappresentazione del valore di scambio dell'economia classica, e che tutta la costruzione su di esso basata rimane all'interno di una logica perfettamente omogenea ai fondamenti costitutivi dei rapporti economici nella società capitalistica. Svolge la sua analisi polemica avvalendosi di frequenti citazioni di economisti come Ricardo, Smith, Sismondi, Say ed altri. Dimostra quindi come non abbia senso, né economico né politico, prefigurare una società in cui le merci siano scambiate secondo il cosiddetto valore costituito, e che questo non porterebbe ad altro che a una generalizzazione della proprietà privata e dei suoi presupposti economici e ad un livellamento dei salari al minimo.
Altre pagine di estremo interesse sono quelle dedicate da Marx alla moneta, al denaro, che egli considera non una cosa ma un rapporto sociale, per essere il suo compito quello di mezzo di scambio universale.
Il secondo grande capitolo, La metafisica dell'economia politica è meno tecnicistico e si addentra, sin dall'inizio, nel metodo falsamente dialettico che Proudhon impiega per sviluppare la sua teoria. Da profondo conoscitore della dialettica hegeliana Marx sbeffeggia il primitivo metodo proudhoniano, che consiste nell'attribuire alle categorie economiche un lato positivo ed uno negativo, per cui tutto lo sforzo di sintesi sta nell'eliminare quest'ultimo e far emergere il buono di categorie che egli accetta come date.
Per dimostrare la superficialità, l'antistoricità e l'evanescenza del metodo di Proudhon Marx dedica specifici capitoli ad alcune delle categorie economiche esaminate da Proudhon, come la divisione del lavoro, la concorrenza, il monopolio, la rendita. Molto importanti, per la loro modernità, sono a mio avviso le pagine che Marx dedica alla meccanizzazione dell'industria, ed alle sue conseguenze sul lavoro umano.
Infine Marx confuta con energia le affermazioni di Proudhon sull'inutilità dei sindacati, delle rivendicazioni salariali e degli scioperi.
La lettura di quest'opera e delle altre principali del Marx prima del Capitale mi ha consegnato la consapevolezza della enormità del lavoro fatto dal pensatore tedesco – in parte insieme a Friedrich Engels – per definire una potente chiave di interpretazione della realtà. Questa chiave a mio avviso apre ancora oggi moltissime porte, compresa quella di un esito necessario della storia. Credo, a differenza di recenti interpretazioni del pensiero Marxiano, che il cosiddetto Marxismo della contraddizione sia la base da cui partire per qualsiasi analisi della società attuale, ovviamente tenendo conto dei 150 anni trascorsi nel frattempo.
Se il marxismo si è storicamente inverato in una fallimentare ideologia (ma quanto più fallimentare di ideologie che oggi sono quasi universalmente accettate?) questo è dovuto, a mio avviso, alla pretesa di applicare schematicamente alcuni principi teorici a determinate condizioni storiche, oltre che alla durezza di tali condizioni. Leggendo Marx ci si può rendere conto di quanto lontane dal suo pensiero – e forse anche dalla sua personalità – fossero le azioni di chi in molti casi ha operato in nome del comunismo e del proletariato: proprio il Marxismo della contraddizione ci può spiegare anche il necessario fallimento dei vari esperimenti di socialismo realizzato, e questa è, a mio avviso, una ulteriore prova della profondità dell'analisi marxiana della realtà.

[An · Rating 5 out of 5]

beef del bo

La crítica de Marx a Proudhon es manté vigent en la mesura que hi continua havent una esquerra que encara cau en els mateixos errors que el francès. Ja sigui els reformistes que confonen la igualtat formal capitalista en una igualtat a aconseguir amb una economia més igualitària. O els obreristes i autonomistes que encara confonen les contradiccions capitalistes com a contradicció entre parts bones a conservar i parts dolentes a eliminar. Aquesta tesi, claríssima en Marx el 1844 i desenvolupada en profunditat en El Capital és d'on Postone i companyia treuen la crítica al marxisme tradicional que afirma el treball contra el capital. El reconeixement de les contradiccions capitalistes com a immanents al sistema marca la revolució com a única mesura capaç de superar-los.

A la segona part del llibre sobre mètode s'esbossen algunes de les idees claus del mètode dialèctic que -malgrat la lectura fichteana de Hegel- estableixen els primers passos que seran exposats explícitament als Grundrisse i implícitament al Capital.

A més, aquest llibre és un fart de riure i fins i tot sap greu lo malament que queda Proudhon. Això em fa pensar que segurament hauríem de ser més crítiques i deixar de reproduir la manera amb què Marx ridiculitza els seus adversaris (tot i que potser en el cas de Proudhon negacionista de les vagues, misògin, etc potser està justificat)

Ale petonets i foc al circ parlamentari burgès!

[Bernard · Rating 4 out of 5]

A marked improvement over German Ideology, a compelling and solid foundation for Marx's economic concepts as well as a more restrained, but consequently more analytic, critical study of 19th century political economy counterposed to Proudhon.

[Neal Maro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Polemic against Proudhon.

[10000 WPM]

Incredibly severe critique, clearly justified. Marx was a good writer and editor!

[Caleb Pykkonen]

*“Time is everything, man is nothing; he is, at the most, time’s carcass.”

*In the Forward, Engels points out that the Ricardian Theory of value allows the bourgeois economist to believe in the values of morality and justice while still believing they have shown that capitalist economic theory results in the best outcomes for humanity. Marx undermines this move by bourgeois economists through his discovery that economic value comes from the surplus labor of the worker, stolen by the capitalist. This in turn highlights a larger point about liberalism, which is a conscious ignorance of societal decay. Liberalism is the ideology which allowed capitalism to flourish. Capitalism reaching its final form means suffering on a global scale, and the pillaging and destruction of the natural planet (at least as far as humans know it). Liberals, to maintain their belief that their ideology is rational and moral, must allow themselves to achieve a state of ignorance about the suffering of other humans and the environment of the planet. A kernel exists in the mind of a liberal which indicates to them that their ideology is not in fact moral, or even fully rational, but the liberal must consciously ignore this kernel and not allow it to develop. A key aspect of this psychological state is the repeated affirmation that liberals are “moral,” and that the rights and freedoms of individuals are the highest state that human beings can seek.

*So, not only does Marx’s economic theory undermine the validity of classical bourgeois economics, but it also undermines the sense of morality and justice which the bourgeois as a class needs to feel. This might explain, in part, why bourgeois capitalist propaganda has been so successful in liberal capitalist states. This propaganda can play on the feeling of despair that lurks under the surface of every liberal psyche by referencing only the fear that Marx’s theory attempts to uncover – a fear that already exists under the surface of the liberal’s mind. Of course, this propaganda does not actually engage Marx’s theory on its merits since doing so would undermine the propaganda itself.

*In the forward, Engels contemptuously describes the economic theory of Rodbertus, who developed a system wherein every good produced has a corresponding “note” which represents its value. Of course, this is not the case as Engels demonstrates, but it does represent another important liberal bourgeois tendency – the impulse to reverse-engineer theories and justifications for problems which arise out of the contradictions of capitalism. Rodbertus attempts to identify the source of the value of commodities without acknowledging the capitalist stealing surplus value from the laborer.

*Marx develops his idea of the market by considering exchange value. He observes that the course of humanity and the development of the State has been a slow process of turning every object into an object of exchange, until finally, intangible objects (i.e., “virtue, love, conviction, knowledge, conscience”) have all been turned into objects of exchange.

*Marx points out that it is impossible to develop ideas of supply and demand without considering the impact that class and social position have on these concepts. In other words, he gets to a fundamental critique of classical economics, which is that classical economics ignore political and class considerations. Classical economists want to consider humans in a vacuum, whose needs can be estimated without considering anything else about their lives except what they want or need in a discrete instant of time. This is a useful starting point for the classical economist, whose purpose is to defend the class position of the bourgeoisie. However, as Marx points out, the entire “free market” is a construct of capitalist state society, one of whose purposes is to maintain the positions of the bourgeois and the proletariat. Therefore, just like other aspects of classical economics and Liberal Philosophy as a whole, the “free market” becomes a reverse-engineered theory to justify the social order of the capitalist state.

*Marx has a fascinating insight into the change in relationship between supply and demand after society has industrialized on a mass scale. Marx observes that previously, and in the period that classical economists wish to focus upon, demand preceded supply. However, with mass industrialization, “large-scale industry…can no longer wait for demand.” In other words, production will continue whether or not there is demand for the fruits of such production. One can imagine this leading to the cyclical boom-bust nature of modern capitalist economy. One can also see how this leads to the impulse to structure the economy around consumption, as is done in the modern western world – particularly America. Consumption might be thought-of as the use of unnecessary goods, and from that perspective, consumption’s only purpose is to continue to fuel the flames of capitalism and transfer wealth from the working class to the capitalist. The movement from demand-driven economy to supply-driven economy can almost be imagined as capitalism awaking, and taking over the controls of the economy. The algorithm became self-conscious when production began to drive things. No longer were humans responding to their own observations of the needs in the world and creating goods to meet those needs. Humans began to be pulled by the algorithm. Marx’s predictive power is remarkable, and he managed these insights because he saw the world and economics through the lens of class, and the dialectic of historical economy created by class society.

*Marx discusses how Proudhon’s invocation of Hegel’s dialectics represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the dialectic. Proudhon views every economic category through what he considers to be a dialectic lens; in other words, every economic category is made up of a good side and a bad side. Proudhon then thinks that the problem to be solved is eliminating the bad of every economic category while maintaining the good. The problem, as Marx points out, is that this is not actually how economic categories work. This is not how the dialectic works. This flaw in Proudhon’s philosophy exist in modern liberal bourgeois philosophy. Liberalism is an exercise in attempting to maintain the capitalist economic system while simply eliminating the problematic elements. This is exactly what Proudhon wants to do. However, as Hegel and Marx tell us, the system does not exist without its problematic elements. The problematic elements of the system are a part of the dialectic process which composes the system, without which there would be no system.

* “Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the socialists and communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class. So long as the proletariat is not yet sufficiently developed to constitute itself as a class, and consequently so long as the struggle itself of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie has not yet assumed a political character, and the productive forces are not yet sufficiently developed in the bosom of the bourgeoisie itself to enable us to catch a glimpse of the material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat and for the formation of a new society, these theoreticians are merely utopians who, to meet the wants of the oppressed classes, improvise systems and go in search of a regenerating science.” Marx realizes that the proletariat needs to become fully self-conscious before it is ready to overthrow capitalism. Still, Marx seemingly did not fully grasp what this meant. As we have seen from the communist revolutions of the twentieth century, it is not possible for a communist revolution to succeed unless the proletariat is a unified class that exists across the entire globe, and whose material conditions are universally poor enough such that this class is united in its desire to overthrow the bourgeoise. To put a slightly finer point on it, this means that as of 2025, the material conditions for the proletariat in industrialized western nations needs to deteriorate significantly and globalization needs to continue its progress until solidarity is felt by members of the proletariat across the world (admittedly, these are nebulous descriptions). However, these goalposts could help clarify what members of the proletariat and “socialists” and “communists,” as Marx refers to them, should be looking for as indications that the proletariat has assumed “a political character.” To emphasize, the most important condition is that the proletariat is one, unified class across the globe. Until that point, the work of organizing around short-term goals, cultivating class consciousness, and furthering political education are vital. But ultimately, individuals do not control the time frame for when the conditions of revolution will arise. That timeline is in the hands of capital, which is the only thing that can author the terms and timeframe of its own destruction.

*In this work, Marx focuses much more on the division of labor (since this is what Proudhon and classical economists centered there analyses around). Of course, in his affirmative work, Marx gets to the root of the division of labor, which is capital. However, since the division of labor can be more easily mapped to cultural phenomena, it is useful for Marx in this work since it allows him to show how the division of labor led to the development of social classes. As he puts it, “the division of labor created castes.” In Capital, Marx does not spend significant time discussion the division of society into classes – much more of Capital is spent on the underlying cause of both the division of labor and class society. So, it is useful to get a more high-level analysis of the shape of modern capitalist society through the vehicle of Marx’s critique of others’ work.

*Marx points out an aspect of worker strikes that is not a part of most mainstream working class thought, and Marx’s understanding is vital to integrate into the working class’s conscious if there is ever to be a successful overthrow of the capitalist world order. Marx points out that every worker strike is followed by an improvement in technology which tends, in the long run, to drive down wages and increase the capitalist’s power over the worker. This view shows the underlying drive by capital to achieve complete control over the worker, and this drive never stops. The most successful worker strike will achieve raised wages in the short term, but in the long term these gains will always be erased by improved technology, and thus more capitalist control over the worker. This is precisely why worker strikes (and other near-term proletariat tactics) which do not have an underlying strategy which involves the eventual overthrow of the capitalist will never do more than create periods of relative comfort for the worker as capitalism moves towards the eventual destruction of humanity. The worker needs to understand that the strike is a tactic, but it is not the end goal. Even today, as working-class consciousness and solidarity has increased significantly since the Covid-19 pandemic, the capitalist has begun to roll out technology which will completely erase any worker gains – artificial intelligence. From an even more cynical standpoint, worker strikes are vital to the process of capitalist development. Worker strikes drive the capitalist to develop new technology which will allow the capitalist to take a larger share of the product of labor, and allow the further hoarding of wealth and power. So, in a perverse way, the capitalist welcomes the worker strike because it forces the capitalist to evolve.

[suso · Rating 5 out of 5]

MATALO CABRON

[Bülent Kayran · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okunması elzem olmayan bir Marx kitabı bence. Marx dede Wikipedia'ya göre kendini "anarşist" olarak tanımlayan ilk kişi olan Proudhon'a veryansın ediyor. Hemen her tartışma zemininde Proudhon'u (çoğu zaman kendi silahlarıyla) yere seriyor.

Kitabın 1. ve 2. Ekleri kitabın özeti niteliğinde. Bunları okumak, ekonomi politik tarihine ve detaylarına çok meraklı değilseniz yeterli olacaktır.

Anarşist-sosyalist kavgasına Marksistler açısından son noktayı koyan ve genel olarak sırtını bu kitaba yaslayan Engels'in "Anarşizm Üzerine" adlı eseri bence günümüz okuru açısından daha iyi bir belagat.

Okuması zaman zaman yorucu ama zevkliydi..

[Hantz FV · Rating 4 out of 5]

"M. Proudhon has the misfortune of being peculiarly misunderstood in Europe. In France, he has the right to be a bad economist, because he is reputed to be a good German philosopher. In Germany, he has the right to be a bad philosopher, because he is reputed to be one of the ablest of French economists. Being both German and economist at he same time, we desire to protest against this double error." 🔥😱🔥😱🔥😱🔥

This is the purest form of a diss track. It could have been titled "The Anti-Proudhon". And if I were Proudhon I wouldn't want to be Marx' friend after the publication of this book either, so brutal.

Basically Proudhon (in his Philosophy of Poverty) tried to do with political economy what Hegel did with everything else. He tried to give the categories of political economy a supra-historical origin in "pure, eternal, impersonal reason" instead of in the real relationships in a given society. The only issue is he did not really understand Hegel and actually knew nothing about political economy. This is Marx reviewing Proudhon's work and demonstrating the speculative (as opposed to scientific) nature of his "method".

Good reading alongside Capital. Each text helps understand the other better.

The appendices are enlightening in themselves. I couldn't understand anything he was saying about rent in the last part of the text, but the appendices clarified that a little bit. Read Marx' letter to P. V. Annekov for a better review of the whole polemic, if it can even be called that.

Another of the COUNTLESS bangers to finish:

"Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class. So long as the proletariat is not yet sufficiently developed to constitute itself as a class, and consequently so long as the struggle itself of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie has not yet assumed a political character, and the productive forces are not yet sufficiently developed in the bosom of the bourgeoisie itself to enable us to catch a glimpse of the material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat and for the formation of a new society, these theoreticians are merely utopians who, to meet the wants of the oppressed classes, improvise systems and go in search of a regenerating science. But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece. So long as they look for science and merely make systems, so long as they are at the beginning of the struggle, they see in poverty nothing but poverty, without seeing in it the revolutionary, subversive side, which will overthrow the old society. From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.

Let us return to M. Proudhon.

Every economic relation has a good and a bad side; it is the one point on which M. Proudhon does not give himself the lie. He sees the good side expounded by the economists; the bad side he sees denounced by the Socialists. He borrows from the economists the necessity of eternal relations; he borrows from the Socialists the illusion of seeing in poverty nothing but poverty. He is in agreement with both in wanting to fall back upon the authority of science. Science for him reduces itself to the slender proportions of a scientific formula; he is the man in search of formulas. Thus it is that M. Proudhon flatters himself on having given a criticism of both political economy and communism: he is beneath them both. Beneath the economists, since, as a philosopher who has at his elbow a magic formula, he thought he could dispense with going into purely economic details; beneath the socialists, because he has neither courage enough nor insight enough to rise, be it even speculatively, above the bourgeois horizon.

He wants to be the synthesis – he is a composite error.

He wants to soar as the man of science above the bourgeois and proletarians; he is merely the petty bourgeois, continually tossed back and forth between capital and labour, political economy and communism."

[Gilly Singh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Part one of this text includes an incisive critique of Proudhon's idealist economic viewpoints. Such criticism also gives scope for Marx to put forward his economic theories.

The Poverty of Philosophy is far from being an introductory text and I would highly recommend Comrades study Value, Price and Profit/Wage Labour and Capital first as well as Socialism: Utopian & Scientific for an overview of the ideas which Marx had developed. That is the only reason I scored it 3 out of 5.

Part two goes in depth on the philosophical ideas which underpin Proudhon's economics. Once again, it gives scope for Marx to elaborate his own conception of Dialectical Materialism.

The edition of The Poverty of Philosophy which I read was the edition published by Foreign Languages Press in Peking/Beijing and it included appendices. The appendices themselves are far from essential but they attempt to reiterate some of the key points raised by Marx in his criticism of Proudhon.

It is not easy going but this text is worth studying in depth once you have come to grips with the basics of Marxist Economics and Philosophy.