Talk:The Poverty of Philosophy

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Philosophy: Literature / Social and political / Modern / Contemporary High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Social and political philosophy
	Modern philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Top‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Top‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]