The Poverty of Philosophy/Introduction
Introduction.
No apology, I imagine, is necessary for the appearance of this translation of Marx's "Misère de la Philosophie." On the contrary it is strange that it should not have been published in England before, and that the translation of his monumental work, the "Capital," tardy as that was, should have yet been made before that of a work which was originally published some twenty years before "Capital" first appeared.
It may be that the translators and editors of the latter work were of opinion that in view of the comprehensiveness of "Capital," a publication of an English edition of the "Misère de la Philosophie" would be a work of supererogation. Or it may be that they thought a book so distinctly French—as the "Capital" may be said to be distinctly English—and which was, further, exclusively a criticism of a work of Proudhon's little known in England—would have slight interest for English readers. On the other hand, the groundwork of the theories so fully elaborated in "Capital," apart from its exhaustive analysis of the capitalist system of production and distribution, will be found in "Misère." In addition, there are several subjects—notably that of rent—dealt with in this volume which are barely touched upon in the single book of "Capital" which has been translated into English.
Marx's criticism of Proudhon's theory that "the time which is necessary to create a commodity indicates exactly its degree of utility," so that "the things of which the production costs the least time are the things which are the most immediately useful," has been matched by H. M. Hyndman's crushing refutation of the theory of Final Utility. The subject of rent, too, has been fully dealt with by the latter in the same book, "The Economics of Socialism," published, as the author says, in the hope of furnishing "the rapidly-increasing number of students of sociology with a concise and readable statement of the main theories of the scientific school of political economy founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels." Neither of these facts, however, necessarily detracts from the value of this older work of Marx's. On the question of rent, after reviewing the Ricardian theory and the many objections which present themselves to that theory, Hyndman says: "It seems, therefore, that a wider definition of the rent of land under capitalism is needed than that given by Ricardo, and the following is suggested:—Rent of land is that portion of the total net revenue which is paid to the landlord for the use of plots of land after the average profit on the capital embarked in developing such land has been deducted." On the question of confiscating rent he says it "would not affect the position of the working portion of the community unless the money so obtained were devoted to giving them more amusement, to providing them with better surroundings and the like. . . . In fact, the attack upon competitive rents is merely a capitalist attack. That class sees a considerable income going off to a set of people who take no part in the direct exploitation of labor; and its representatives are naturally anxious to stop this leakage, as they consider it, and to reduce their own taxation for public purposes by appropriating rent to the service of the State. That is all very well for them."
On this point Marx says: "We can understand such economists as Mill, Cherbulliez, Hilditch and others, demanding that rent should be handed over to the State to be used for the remission of taxation. That is only the frank expression of the hate which the industrial capitalist feels for the landed proprietor, who appears to him as a useless incumbrance, a superfluity in the otherwise harmonious whole of bourgeois production."
"Rent," says Marx, "results from the social relations in which exploitation is carried on. It cannot result from the nature, more or less fixed, more or less durable, of land. Rent proceeds from society and not from the soil."
The criticism of Proudhon's appreciation of gold and silver as the first manifestation of this theory of "constituted value" should be interesting reading to those admirers of the French Anarchist who yet profess their profound detestation of money and its function. So, too, should his declaration against strikes and combinations of workmen. In this we see once more how extremes meet. This declaration of Proudhon's would not be out of place in the organ of the Liberty and Property Defence League.
In this matter of trade union combination, Marx was scarcely accurate in his perception of its development. He clearly did not foresee that the great English trade unions would become fossilised, as it were; and that instead of being a revolutionary force they would become a reactionary mass, opposing the progress of the mere proletarian outside their ranks, as they have done. With the spread of Socialist ideas among them, however, their exclusive character is being modified, and they may even yet take that place in the revolutionary working-class movement which Marx anticipated they would occupy. Given this change of attitude, the development must inevitably be along the lines he predicted. We are seeing "in face of constantly united capital, the maintenance of the association [becoming] more important and necessary for them than the maintenance of wages," and, further, that the combinations of capital are forcing the trade unions to that point where "association takes a political character."
It is scarcely necessary to point out that in this work, written in 1847, some words have a meaning quite other than that which they bear to-day. Thus, for instance, the words "Socialists" and "Socialism," where they occur, refer to the utopians—who formulated theories of a social system independent of the industrial evolution—and to these theories themselves.
In most cases the numerous quotations have been verified and reproduced in the original. In some instances, however, they are summaries rather than quotations, and appear as translated.
A translation in necessarily an imperfect presentation of the thoughts, ideas, and conclusions of the author. In this work I have endeavored to adhere as closely as possible to the form and letter, as well as the spirit of the original, and to this the indulgent reader is asked to ascribe such faults of language as would otherwise merit his censure.