Page:Karl Marx - The Poverty of Philosophy - (tr. Harry Quelch) - 1913.djvu/202

 APPENDIX 195

German philosopher that he knew at that time, from translation, and he leaves a strong impression that for him, as for Kant, the solution of these contradictions is “beyond” the human understanding, that is to say, that his understanding is incapable of solving them.

But in spite of its alluring iconoclasticism, there is to be found, even in this first work, this contradiction that Proudhon, on one hand, deals with society from the point of view of the petty peasant (later of the petty bour- geois) of France, and on the other he applies the standard which the Socialists have transmitted to him.

Beyond that the very title of the book indicates its insufficiency. The question was too baldly put for it to be answered correctly. Graeco-Roman property -was re- placed by feudal property, and that by bourgeois pro- perty. History itself conveys the criticism of the con- dition of property in the past. The question with which Proudhon had to deal was as to the relations of modern bourgeois property. To the question what were these relations, one could only reply by a critical analysis of political economy, embracing the whole of the relations of property, not in their juridical expression. as relations of will, but in their real form as relation of material production. As Proudhon subordinated the whole of these economic relations to the juridical notion of pro- perty, he could not go beyond the response which had been already given by Brissot before 1789 and in the same terms: “Property is Robbery.”*

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that the juridical notions of the bourgeoisie on robbery apply as well to its honest profits. On the other hand, as robbery,

et sur le vol,” &c. Berlin 1782. (In the sixth volume of the “Bibliotheque du législateur,” by Brissot de Warville.)
 * Brissot de Warville, “Recherches sur le droit de propriété