From: cat æscling Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 10:46:07 +0000 (-0400) Subject: Expose Christopher Nolan for the hack he is X-Git-Url: https://git.ladys.computer/Wiki/commitdiff_plain/c2c9422d1abfa8f7514c1146baccd17e71d0b5c9 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 5b8aca3..b7e4005 100644 --- 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 Ancient “property relations” were superseded by feudal property +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