Talk:The Poverty of Philosophy

Pop Culture

The assertion is simply incorrect, the Immortal Technique song is The Poverty Philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.125.121 (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Marx was wrong

Having read both books, it is far to say that Marx repeatedly misrepresented Proudhon's ideas. Seriously misrepresented them -- to the degree of tampering with quotes, proclaiming Proudhon advocated ideas he explicitly rejected, etc.

This is discussed in the recent Proudhon anthology "Property is Theft!" (see the Proudhon and Marx). Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article?

In terms of 'first English-language translator Harry Quelch noted that the work contained "the groundwork of the theories so fully elaborated in Capital..."', well, the 1847 work has no theory of exploitation. Proudhon's book has and it is this which is "elaborated" in Capital.

Also, perhaps it should be mentioned that Marx admitted in his letter to P.V. Annenkov that he had "skimmed" the book, having read it in "two days" -- and you can tell, as he clearly does not understand what Proudhon was arguing.

Then, of course, there are all the many examples of Marx later coming to the same position as Proudhon, in other words he later concluded that what he had said in 1847 was, in fact, wrong.

All in all, "The Poverty of Philosophy" should not be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.94 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside your other claims, this is what Marx wrote in his December 28, 1846 letter to Annenkov: "You would long ago have received my answer to your letter of November 1 but for the fact that my bookseller only sent me Monsieur Proudhon's book, The Philosophy of Poverty, last week. I have gone through it in two days in order to be able to give you my opinion about it at once." In other words, he had hurriedly looked at Proudhon's book in order to reply to Annenkov, not in order to write The Poverty of Philosophy. According to a footnote provided by the Soviet publishers of Marx's book, "In January 1847, as appears from Engels's letter to Marx bearing the date January 15, 1847, Marx was already at work on his reply to Proudhon. By the beginning of April it had been completed in the main and was in the printshop. On June 15, Marx wrote a short foreword." Evidently he spent more than two days reading Proudhon. Nor is there the slightest evidence that Marx "concluded that what he had said in 1847 was, in fact, wrong." Talk about misrepresentation. --Ismail (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)