Page:Karl Marx - The Poverty of Philosophy - (tr. Harry Quelch) - 1913.djvu/149

 142 THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY

To terminate the literary view, we formally deny that “all the economists have insisted very much more on the advantages than on the inconveniences of the division of labor.” It is sufficient to name Sismondi.

Thus, as regards the advantages of the division of labor, M. Proudhon had nothing to do but to paraphrase, more or less pompously, the general phrases which every- body knows.

Let us now see how he derives from the division of labor, taken as a general law, as a category, a thought, the inconveniences which are attached to it. How is it that this category, this law, implies an unequal distribu- tion of labor to the detriment of the equalitarian system of M. Proudhon? :

“At this solemn hour of the division of labor the wind of the tempests begins to beat upon humanity. Progress is not accomplished for all in an equal and uniform manner ;.... it begins by creating a small number of privileged persons..... It is this respect of persons on the part of progress which has created the old-established belief in the natural and providential inequality of con- ditions, and has given birth to castes, and has hierarchically constituted all societies.” (Proudhon, Vol. L, p. 97.)

The division of labor has made castes. But castes are the inconveniences of the division of labor ; then it is the division of labor which has engendered inconveniences. Quod erat demonstrandwm. Would you go further and ask what causes. the division of labor to create castes, hierarchic constitutions and privileged classes? M. Proudhon will tell you: Progress. And what has made this progress? The limit. The limit for M. Proudhon is the respect of persons on the part of progress.

After philosophy comes history. This is no longer