C's Reviews > The Poverty of Philosophy

The Poverty of Philosophy by Karl Marx
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Apr 29, 2012

liked it
Read from April 29 to May 01, 2012

This is the first book by Marx that I cannot rank highly. Marx has a notorious reputation for belittling anarchists, and wasting too much time on responding to less worthy opponents, instead of developing his own theories. There are even rumors and notions that had Marx solely done his own work, and stopped wasting time in rhetorical matches to the philosophic death, he may have finished all his intended volumes of Capital. We’ll never know, but this is certainly one of those books that gave Marx this nasty reputation.

The first half of the book is like watching Einstein mock grade schoolers for their poor math performance. Yes, Marx is that much superior to Proudhon, but instead of merely proving him wrong, and revealing the error of his ways, perhaps even offering a helping hand and guidance, Marx proceeds to bury him six feet under, and place a dunce cap on his philosophical grave stone. In a letter to a friend Marx even remarks that this reply/book, ruined their friendship forever. Some friendship…

Economically, there’s little here that is not stated clearer, and with more depth in Capital, EP Manuscripts, and Wage Labor and Profit. Moreover, the chapters dealing with metaphysics and philosophy are very cursory glances into Marx’s clearer theory of historical materialism, as found in The German Ideology.

However the book warrants three stars for two reasons. First it dispels the myth that Marx saw history as a teleological process whereby communism was inevitable and the light at the end of the tunnel. Two, he mirrors a critique anarcho-primitivist have been moving towards (I’m thinking of Derrick Jensen, DGR, and John Zerzan).

Proudhon develops his own dialectic whereby everything in history has a good side and a bad side. Marx quips about the good side to slavery, in typical sarcasm. Proudhon also believes that the tensions between the good and the bad are inevitably leading to equality. All history for Hegel is the realization of the absolute, and for Proudhon, it’s the realization of equality. Marx spends ample time refuting this view. Thus, Marx does not see history as a trajectory towards equality as he has been accused of doing.

The second praise worth point is summed up in a quote, where Marx sees civilization as the falling point of humanity, and not its rise into progress: “The very moment civilization begins, production begins to be founded on the antagonism of orders, estates, classes, and finally on the antagonism of accumulated labor and actual labor. No antagonism, no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed up to our days. Till now the productive forces have been developed by virtue of this system of class antagonisms.”

Overall, read Marx’s other works, this isn’t a very good one. Unless you’re like me, and just want to read everything he wrote, including the lousy stuff…
8 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Poverty of Philosophy.
Sign In »

Quotes C Liked

Karl Marx
“When the economists say that present-day relations – the relations of bourgeois production – are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature. These relations therefore are themselves natural laws independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus, there has been history, but there is no longer any.”
Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy

Reading Progress

04/29/2012 page 85
02/25/2016 marked as: read

Comments (showing 1-2 of 2) (2 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Scott Re:"First it dispels the myth that Marx saw history as a teleological process whereby communism was inevitable and the light at the end of the tunnel", What about at the end when Marx says "The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism"?

message 2: by C (last edited May 17, 2015 05:35AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

C Its been over three years since I read this, and if I remember correctly, my reasons for making that claim were not focused on the last section of the book, but something more explicit contained within earlier chapters. Nevertheless, I just reread the very end, and it strikes me as if Marx is laying out a set of necessary conditions in tandem with possibilities. The claim your quote is a conclusion of, is a legitimate conclusion, if and only if other certain conditions obtain. So I could say, the movie theater, in the course of its development, will substitute the center seats over the aisle seats, due to seat preference antagonism (i.e., if you own a theater, and usual conditions obtain, then it's likely you'll be replacing certain chairs over other chairs more regularly). But that is not an inevitable claim about history. Nor is it a claim that history qua history has a teleological process.

back to top