Expose Christopher Nolan for the hack he is

:P
The commit subject is a joke but the frustration is very much not

* god fucking damn it

diff --git a/Sources/Page/MarxQuotes.djot b/Sources/Page/MarxQuotes.djot
index 5b8aca3a4ca18601454a32370e7d96e444ef00aa..b7e4005b9fb37a6ed9d9ba9c8e77c8dda4d52ea0 100644 (file)
--- a/Sources/Page/MarxQuotes.djot
+++ b/Sources/Page/MarxQuotes.djot
@@ -487,5 +487,61 @@ In fact the sensual world of pleasures Foucault imagines is, ⅌ Marx, a
 It does not precede it.
 [][@:Lady]{.sig})
 
+## from _On Proudhon_{as=cite}[^DSD161718]
+
+{as=figure}
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::
+> But in spite of all his apparent iconoclasm one already finds in
+>   Qu’est-ce que la propriété’?  the contradiction that Proudhon is
+>   criticising society, on the one hand, from the standpoint and with
+>   the eyes of a French small-holding peasant (later petit bourgeois)
+>   and, on the other, that he measures it with the standards he
+>   inherited from the socialists.
+>
+> The deficiency of the book is indicated by its very title.
+>   The question is so badly formulated that it cannot be answered
+>   correctly.
+> Ancient “property relations” were superseded by feudal property
+>   relations and these by “bourgeois” property relations.
+>   Thus history itself had expressed its criticism upon past property
+>   relations.
+> What Proudhon was actually dealing with was modern bourgeois
+>   property as it exists today.
+> The question of what this is could have only been answered by a
+>   critical analysis of “political economy,” embracing the totality of
+>   these property relations, considering not their legal aspect as
+>   relations of volition but their real form, that is, as relations of
+>   production.
+> But as Proudhon entangled the whole of these economic relations in
+>   the general legal concept of “property,” “la propriété,” he could
+>   not get beyond the answer which, in a similar work published before
+>   1789, Brissot had already given in the same words: “La propriété
+>   c’est le vol.”
+>
+> The upshot is at best that the bourgeois legal conceptions of
+>   “theft” apply equally well to the “honest” gains of the bourgeois
+>   himself.
+> On the other hand, since “theft” as a forcible violation of
+>   property presupposes the existence of property, Proudhon entangled
+>   himself in all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about
+>   true bourgeois property.
+{as=figcaption}
+:::::::::::::::
+“What is property?” is a bad question;
+Proudhon’s answer, “Property is theft!”, presupposes property.
+:::::::::::::::
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::
+
+When writing _Oppenheimer_{as="cite"}, Christopher Nolan apparently
+  believed that two people who have both ostensibly read the entirety
+  of _Capital_{as="cite"} would both attribute “Property is theft!” to
+  Marx.
+[][@:Aescling]{.sig}
+
 [^Easton1967]:
   Translated by Loyd D Easton and Kurt H Guddat, © 1967.
+
+[^DSD161718]:
+  From _Der Social-Demokrat_ Nos. 16, 17, and 18; as
+  [republished][https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_24.htm]
+  by Marxists.org