Comparing Karl Marx With Pierre Joseph Proudhon and Their Convictions … Essay
Pages: 8 (2502 words) | Style: n/a | Sources: 3
Karl Marx With Pierre-Jospeh Proudhon
SENSORY INDOOR/OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENT
Comparing Karl Marx with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Research shows that Marx's critical discussion with the work of the French anarchist philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon covered numerous decades-from his youth bombarding the coffee shop of Paris, where he had occasion to meet Proudhon and deliberate German viewpoint, through the writing of What is Property? While largely ignored in the present, Marx's critique of Proudhon remains of real import for all of us struggling to break the hold of capital over our lives and our world. With that said, this essay will compare the ideas of Proudhon by highlighting the salient points of discussion on certain issues such criticizing contemporary society, their proposed means of effecting social change, and their visions of a just society.
When it comes to their criticizing society, despite that, and irrespective of the misrepresentations that Marx inflicted on Proudhon, it is likewise fair to say that he established a lot of the themes he took from Proudhon. As Marx proposed:
"Proudhon's treatise will therefore be scientifically superseded by a criticism of political economy, including Proudhon's conception of political economy. This work became possible only owing to the work of Proudhon himself" (Marx, 2012, p. 31)
Anarchism and Marxism are comparable political philosophies which arose in the nineteenth century. Marx teased that Proudhon "might maybe have determined that this right of free competition with capital R occurs simply in the Economic Manuals, three decades before, Proudhon proclaimed that "Property is the right to appreciate and get rid of another's goods, -- the fruit of another's labor"? (Proudhon, 2012, p. 171) He also ridiculed Proudhon for the axiom that "all labor must leave a surplus" by stating he "attempts to explain this fact" in capitalist production "by reference to some mysterious natural quality of labor." Yet, Marx points to the "peculiar property" of labor that outcomes in "the worth of the labor-power" being "below the value fashioned by its use during that time" (Marx, 2012, p. 270) which sounds bizarrely like Proudhon's saying.
Comparing Proudhon's critique of property with Marx's, it can be discovered that "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to conquer the labor of others by means of such assumption." (Marx, 2012, p. 486) Which reverberates Proudhon's argument that ownership does not permit the seizure of the means of life (workplaces and land) as these should be held in conjoint.
Marx made the argument that credit system shows "the funds for the gradual addition of co-working businesses on a more or less nationwide scale" and so the "expansion of credit" has "the latent ending of capital ownership restricted inside it." However, It "establishes the method of transition to a new manner of creation" and "there can be no doubt that the credit system will serve as an influential lever in the sequence of changeover from the industrial style of production to the approach of production of related labor." (Marx, 2012, p. 156) Proudhon would hardly have differed. For Marx, eliminating interest and interest-bearing capital "means the abolition of capital and of capitalist production itself." (Marx, 2012, p. 39) For Proudhon, "As long as a man is governed by instincts, he is unconscious of his actions in regards to the destruction of capitalism." (Proudhon, 2012, p. 194)
Marx declared that "Proudhon has failed to comprehend" that "financial forms" and "the social associations parallel to them" are "historical and transitory," reasoning that "the middle-class form of production" and "middle-class relations" were "everlasting." (Marx, 2012, p. 310) Yet Proudhon was able explicitly argued that the "current form" of organizing labor "is insufficient and short-lived." Therefore, the need to "organize industry, associate laborers and their purposes." Association "is the obliteration of property" and this "non-seizure of the tools of creation" would be based on "the equality of colleagues." (Proudhon, 2012, p. 204)
Marx did not pay much any attention to any of this. However, he remarked upon Proudhon's argument with Bastiat numerous times and in all of them overlooked that Proudhon was talking about a post-capitalist market. It is clear that Proudhon was well aware that under capitalism "a wage earner, short of property, lacking capital, minus work, is appointed by [the entrepreneur], who offers him service and takes his brand" and his salaries fail to match the value of the possessions he makes. "In mutualist society," on the other hand, "the two purposes" of capitalist and worker "become equivalent and inseparable in the individual of every employee" and so he "on their own incomes by his products." So much for Marx's assertion that this exchange showed Proudhon "want[ed] to preserve wage-labor and consequently the basis of capital." (Marx, 2012, p. 312) As he acknowledged elsewhere, when "the direct creator" is "the possessor of his own means of production" then he is "a non-capitalist producer." This is "a form of production that does not correspond to the capitalist mode of production" even if "he produces his product as a commodity."
Marx typically contended that Proudhon was "the scientific advocate of the French petty middle-class people, which is a real value ever since the petty bourgeoisie will be an essential part of all obstructing social revolutions" (Marx, 2012, p. 295). Nevertheless, when it comes to Proudhon, Marx not once uttered Capital's clear distinction among commodity creation and capitalism and offers him as advocating wage-labor. Proudhon openly did not and contended that while interest was warranted in previous societies, it was not in a mutualist one and attacked Bastiat for declining to imagine anything except capitalism -- a denial Marx shared in this case. So when Marx understood Proudhon as preserving "the productive capitalist in difference to the imparting entrepreneur" and contended that ending interest does not have any kind of an effect on the value of the hats, but merely the delivery of the surplus-value already enclosed in the hats among different individuals" (Marx, 2012, p. 298) he completely missed the point. Marx did, formerly, unclearly recognize this.
With that said, Marx, similar to Proudhon before him, discerned between private property and possession contended that co-operatives should reinstate capitalist firms. Each recognized that capitalism was but a transient form of economy due to replacing with a new one founded on related instead of wage labor. Even though their specific solutions may have varied (with Proudhon pointing for a marketplace economy comprising of craftsperson, farmers and co-operatives even though Marx intended, after a drawn-out transition phase, for centrally deliberate communism) their analysis of capitalism and private property were undistinguishable. Reasonably, given the equivalents, Marx was eager to conceal them.
In expressions of politics, Marx again reiterated Proudhon. The research shows that when Marx positioned "the liberation of the working classes must be dominated by the working classes themselves" (Marx, 2012, p. 402) in the statues of the IWMA, the mutualist delegates must have remembered Proudhon's exhortation from 1848 that "from the right of the strongest arises the exploitation of man by man otherwise called slavery." (Proudhon, 2012, p. 202)
Both contended that the state was a tool used for a class rule, Proudhon in 1846 and Marx a not too long after that. Then there is Proudhon's remark for a dual-power inside the state in early and support for the clubs which Marx later resonated in an address to the Communist Party. based on federations of mandated and recallable delegates who combined executive and legislative powers had been publicly urged by Proudhon since 1848.
It is clear that Marx understood the law of value rather contrarily than Proudhon: not in expressions of "equality" nonetheless in positions of "inequality." What seems as an equality is just that -- an appearance-because it is not separate, concrete labor that has an inclination to exchange in identical proportions, nevertheless only socially average, mental work. In Capital, Marx displays that the worth of a commodity is strongminded by the amount of "socially essential labor-time" necessary for its multiplication -any labor-time further than that which is socially essential is basically unexploited. For example, Karl states, "The serf belongs to the land turns over to the owner of the land the fruits thereof." (Marx, 2012, p. 246)
Marx makes the point that the fact that a person's labor does not count the same is not on account of unequal exchange, but since our labor is not calculated equally in the first place-in the procedure of assembly. Marx goes on to make the point that the labor of some workers counts above the labor of other workers that are in production. He mentions that one worker, for example, may be stronger or quicker than another worker; one worker possibly will be working with more modern technology than another worker. Merely socially essential labor, labor which measures up to the social average, is recorded in modern contemporary society which Marx supports. However, Proudhon would say the opposite and would not agree.
Proudhon would argue against Marx position… [END OF PREVIEW]
Cite This Paper:
APA FormatComparing Karl Marx With Pierre Joseph Proudhon And Their Convictions. (2016, February 29). Retrieved March 24, 2017, from http://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/comparing-karl-marx-pierre-joseph-proudhon/5413896
MLA Format"Comparing Karl Marx With Pierre Joseph Proudhon And Their Convictions." 29 February 2016. Web. 24 March 2017. <http://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/comparing-karl-marx-pierre-joseph-proudhon/5413896>.
Chicago Format"Comparing Karl Marx With Pierre Joseph Proudhon And Their Convictions." Essaytown.com. February 29, 2016. Accessed March 24, 2017.