Isn't Proudhon's Famous "Property is theft!" a Contradiction?

[the last donut of the night]

This may be in the wrong forum; the line between politics and philosophy in this case (at least to me, a veritable amateur when it comes down to philosophy) seems really blurry.

If theft is by definition taking property from someone else, doesn't the phrase "property is theft" seem like a contradiction of terms? Property is made by exploiting the labor of the worker. However, he never had property to start with, so how is it theft?

Did Proudhon refer to theft of labor?

I'm kinda confused.:confused::confused::confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The phrase 'contradiction in terms' is a misnomer since a contradiction involves at least two indivative sentences, one the negation of the other, as in "Paris is in France and Paris isn't in France".

But, this is not even a 'contradiction in terms'. A 'contradiction in terms' is a phrase -- such as "round square' --, whereas "Property is theft" is a sentence.

Here is what Proudhon said:


If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?

—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?

This is what Wiki says about this sentence:



By "property," Proudhon referred to the Roman law concept of the sovereign right of property – the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed right of property with the rights (which he considered valid) of liberty, equality, and security.

In the Confessions d'un revolutionnaire Proudhon further explained his use of this phrase:


In my first memorandum, in a frontal assault upon the established order, I said things like, Property is theft! The intention was to lodge a protest, to highlight, so to speak, the inanity of our institutions. At the time, that was my sole concern. Also, in the memorandum in which I demonstrated that startling proposition using simple arithmetic, I took care to speak out against any communist conclusion. In the System of Economic Contradictions, having recalled and confirmed my initial formula, I added another quite contrary one rooted in considerations of quite another order – a formula that could neither destroy the first proposition nor be demolished by it: Property is freedom. [...] In respect of property, as of all economic factors, harm and abuse cannot be dissevered from the good, any more than debit can from asset in double-entry book-keeping. The one necessarily spawns the other. To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself; just as the striking of a debit from an account is tantamount to striking it from the credit record.

As you can see, Proudhon was a rather confused individual, concerning whose ideas little sense can be made.

Wiki goes on:


Karl Marx, although initially favourable to Proudhon's work, later criticised, among other things, the expression "property is theft" as self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that "since 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property" and condemning Proudhon for entangling himself in "all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about true bourgeois property."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Anyway, this thread should be in Learning, I think.

[Искра]

Proudhon was peti-bourgeoisie and all his works are made from this point. As anarchist he was never really against the state, and he wasn't against market.
Later he rejected everything what he said, he started to proclaim private property.

Here's one interesting Proudhon's quote:
"Workers, tighten your feeders hand, and you bosses do not respond against those that are your workers"

This looks like some kind of lunatic Bible quote.

Proudhon is reactionary and stupid - no doubt. Still he's one of the first theoretician which advocated (at least in his early works from the anarchist phase) society from down to above and federalism. His works on federalism were really god and helpful for Marx and later anarchists.

[Drace]

"Workers, tighten your feeders hand, and you bosses do not respond against those that are your workers"

How did that show that he was reactionary, or supportive of the state or the markets?

[Dean]

If theft is by definition taking property from someone else, doesn't the phrase "property is theft" seem like a contradiction of terms? Property is made by exploiting the labor of the worker. However, he never had property to start with, so how is it theft?
The way I always looked at it, was that property in itself brings on all the ills that individual theft is condemned for. In other words, the loss of personal capacity and facility that comes about from theft of property is an intrinsic character of property since it is by definition exclusory: if I own something which is a public good, I may as well have stolen it from everyone else who can't enjoy it.

However, as Rosa pointed out, Proudhon was either a vulgar dialectician (at least that's what I get from it) or a confused man. While I tend to admire his attitudes toward human dignity, nevertheless he was confused on some of the fundamentals to that question.


Anyway, this thread should be in Learning, I think.

I think it is fair to look at this from a philosophical perspective - after all, 75% of philosophy in this forum is semantics and dissection of sentences, anyways.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Proudhon was expressing the dual nature of property as something that both enslaves and liberates in What is Property? He goes on in it to proclaim that "property is liberty". (Or something to that effect...it has been a bit since I've read it.)

He was one of those figures in anarchist history like Georges Sorel who contributed some important things/ideas, but whos ideology when taken in it's totality is extremely dodgy.

[Drace]

Simply, to own property is to take away from who it should belong to - society

[Искра]

How did that show that he was reactionary, or supportive of the state or the markets?
He's calling for social partnership. What's social partnership if it's not a reactionary politics?

http://masa-hr.org/sites/default/files/klasni-rat.jpg

Social partnership is capitalist lie, class war is the reality!

[Искра]

He was one of those figures in anarchist history like Georges Sorel who contributed some important things/ideas, but whos ideology when taken in it's totality is extremely dodgy.
I think that this pretty much sums Proudhon's work.

[deLarge]

Property is freedom, property is theft, property is impossible.. There were a series of such seemingly contradicting statements, but I forget the exact words.

By theft, I think he meant that property in the sense of usury or rent was theft, or declaring ownership over something you have no right to. Property is freedom as in the freedom to own the product of your labour.. or something.

[Искра]

Proudhon talks about abolishing of property and about property as theft, but he was never against private property. He was against the fact that everything is owned by few, because as he says: "this kind of property is against moral and justice."

So, to satisfy principle of justice in future anarchist society (or at least in his vision of it) Proudhon abolishes this kind of property in which everyone are not owners. Proudhon wants to turn all French people into owners who produce with their own resources. Every French man and women owns same quantity of resources. This is his vision of anarchy as society of economic equality in which is based on balance, solidarity, competition, unlimited loans, etc. Proudhon invented whole system of measures which will help this peti-bourgeoisie socialism to function. Of course, private property is not abolished, as it's in the core of this system.

Now, you can always laugh to Proudhon how stupid he was etc. I'm first to agree that he was completely wrong. But, he was one of the first theoreticians of any kind of socialism and I think that he should be treated as early Utopian-Socialists (Owen and company). As I said earlier his problem was that he was peti-bourgeoisie and he was thinking in the way that his class is thinking. That's why mutualism, his economical system, is stupid and reactionary. Still, his works - especially on federalism, inspired a lot of theoreticians.

[ZeroNowhere]

This may be in the wrong forum; the line between politics and philosophy in this case (at least to me, a veritable amateur when it comes down to philosophy) seems really blurry.

If theft is by definition taking property from someone else, doesn't the phrase "property is theft" seem like a contradiction of terms? Property is made by exploiting the labor of the worker. However, he never had property to start with, so how is it theft?

Did Proudhon refer to theft of labor?

I'm kinda confused.:confused::confused::confused:
Your reasoning is faulty here because you're using 'property' in two distinct senses here. The word 'property' as pertains to theft means possessions in general, whereas in Proudhon's sense it refers to class property, that is, the separation of labourer from the means of production. If I stole your shoes, that would be theft, but your shoes are not, I would guess, property in the way Proudhon was using it.

When it comes to exploitation, it refers to the realization of surplus labour as profits, in which case one could say somewhat crudely that the labourer is having their labour-time 'stolen' for the capitalists' gain. Capital is also founded upon the expropriation of the peasants, who are taken off their land and chucked into factories. It could also refer to the fact that capital is the separation of labourer from conditions of production, which is distinct from previous modes of production, though that could be somewhat flawed, as it can only be differentiated because 'separation' is distinct from 'non-ownership', which was certainly not especially uncommon because capitalism, but the concept of 'theft' generally deals with the question of ownership.

[ComradeMan]

The phrase 'contradiction in terms' is a misnomer since a contradiction involves at least two indivative sentences, one the negation of the other, as in "Paris is in France and Paris isn't in France".

Sounds like a perfume advertisements "C'est Paris, mais ce n'est pas Paris...!" :)

A 'contradiction in terms' is a phrase -- such as "round square' --,

Are you sure about that? I beg to differ and say it is a tautology (rhetorical).

An oxymoron is a contradiction in terms, when you say things like "almost exactly" etc.

Proudhon was not talking about personal possession he was talking about the ownership of land, factories and the means of production.

By "property," Proudhon referred to the Roman law concept of the sovereign right of property – the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed right of property with the rights of liberty, equality, and security. He was using dramatic language and puns to get his point over. I don't think anyone serious would argue that he is condoning theft as we understand it. Remember the old saying "property is nine tenths of the law?"-

Proudhon was coming out of post-Revolutionary France at the time of the collapse of the Ancien Régime in which we had the notion of the Three Estates, King, Church and People. Ordinary people did not own land and had virtually no rights- in Russia there was still serfdom, even in the more "enlightened" countries there was nowhere near the same emancipation that we take for granted today. You have to view Proudhon's comments int he context of the time.

Fundamentally, and from a philosophical point of view I can understand Proudhon's point. For example, by what right do people own land? By no right at all. But that land was bought from someone? No? So from whom was it bought? If you take it back to the beginning you will find someone took it, staked their claim and said "it's mine"- and usually held it by force. Is that not theft?

Proudhon was not talking about owning your own watch of bicycle.

The original quote:-

If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?

[Искра]

Proudhon was not talking about owning your own watch of bicycle.
I think that everyone discussing the term "property" are aware of this. Marx's definition of private property is also not about "owning your bicycle" :)

[ZeroNowhere]

Are you sure about that? I beg to differ and say it is a tautology (rhetorical). No, it's not possible, and as such can't be a tautology. A tautology would be something like, 'if a is b and b is c then a is c'. And 'almost exactly' is not an oxymoron, as it is not being proposed that something is almost some value as well as exactly that value, rather than it is close to the exact value.

[ComradeMan]

No, it's not possible, and as such can't be a tautology. A tautology would be something like, 'if a is b and b is c then a is c'. And 'almost exactly' is not an oxymoron, as it is not being proposed that something is almost some value as well as exactly that value, rather than it is close to the exact value.

The problem with these terms is that they are used differently by different people and in different academic areas, namely rhetoric and logic.

A rhetorical tautology (not a logical tautology) is when you use two words that have the same meaning, or imply each other and thus render one word superfluous- such as saying a "round" circle- a circle can only ever be round and so the adjective is unnecessary, other examples might be saying something is "dark black" etc.

A contradictio in terminis is when two words are in absolute contrast with each other. It depends on whether this was unintentional and thus an "error" or intentional, rhetorically speaking and then it becomes an oxymoron.

An oxymoron has two uses in modern English:

The so-called true or Greek oxymoron is the paradox, two contradictory ideas express a surprising truth which is the paradox.

The more modern/common usage is when two facts, words that seem to contradict each other are juxtaposed.

In the example of "almost exactly" there is an oxymoron because either something is exact or it isn't- 100% is 100% if it is almost 100% i.e. 99% then it is not 100% and is not exact- yet as you point out, we all know what they mean- that's where the problem lies because some people maintain that this is a mistake in logic whereas others maintain that the oxymoron serves its purpose beyond the actual words used.

The example of 'if a is b and b is c then a is c'. is an example of a blurred logical fallacy that was used to bring down the Cartesian theory of is "man can coneive of God then God must exist"

[ZeroNowhere]

A rhetorical tautology (not a logical tautology) is when you use two words that have the same meaning, or imply each other and thus render one word superfluous- such as saying a "round" circle- a circle can only ever be round and so the adjective is unnecessary, other examples might be saying something is "dark black" etc.Sure, but what does that have to do with Rosa's 'round square'?

[ComradeMan]

Sure, but what does that have to do with Rosa's 'round square'?


Round-square?

You're quite right.... I misread it and had a round-circle in mind!!! :blushing:, apologies to Rosa.

However it is interesting to note how words so easily "change" their popular meaning.

Ps (I am a bit bleary eyed today....Saturday mornings.....!:lol: )

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Man:


Are you sure about that? I beg to differ and say it is a tautology (rhetorical).

What is a tautology? "Round square"? Surely not.


An oxymoron is a contradiction in terms, when you say things like "almost exactly" etc.

Well, I won't argue with you over what an oxymoron is, but a contradiction involves a "gain-saying" of whatever someone says, and since single words cannot say anything, or cannot be used to say anything (unless in answer to a question, when they have conversational implicatures), only indicative sentences or clauses can, then 'contradiction in terms' is a misnomer, as I said.

And I think Marx answered this one:


Fundamentally, and from a philosophical point of view I can understand Proudhon's point. For example, by what right do people own land? By no right at all. But that land was bought from someone? No? So from whom was it bought? If you take it back to the beginning you will find someone took it, staked their claim and said "it's mine"- and usually held it by force. Is that not theft?

As Wiki noted:


Karl Marx, although initially favourable to Proudhon's work, later criticised, among other things, the expression "property is theft" as self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that "since 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property" and condemning Proudhon for entangling himself in "all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about true bourgeois property."

Since theft is predicated on the law of property, property cannot be theft.

[ZeroNowhere]

What is a tautology? "Round square"? Surely not.They misread it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, I see.

[ComradeMan]

What is a tautology? "Round square"? Surely not.
-That was my mistake- apologies- see note above.:blushing:

Well, I won't argue with you over what an oxymoron is, but a contradiction involves a "gain-saying" of whatever someone says,

No- that's not the rhetorical meaning, that's a different kind of argument. It's not like my saying "I'm right because XYZ and you're wrong etc..:" It depends on what school of thought is being applied:-

Classical- a logical incompatibilty and the concept of ex falso quodlibet
Pragmatic- into which the Proudhon quote is thrown
Dialectical-materialism- all existence is the result of contradiction:)

and since single words cannot say anything, or cannot be used to say anything

What about these single words?

Hello!
Pardon?
Ouch!
Bravo!
Ciao! :)

Since theft is predicated on the law of property, property cannot be theft.

That's called intellectual masturbation. We all know what Proudhon meant and what he didn't mean either. He was using the classical oxymoron in order to express a paradoxical truth that was obviously lost on Marx. Proudhon has been accused of using a self-refuting stament of stolen-concept fallacy (as above) however in Proudhon's statement he uses "theft" and "murder" rhetorically- when he says that slavery is murder it is obvious he does not mean that the victim is "dead" and when he talks of "theft" he means the denial of rights and we could add to this the Wittgensteinian idea that if words basically only mean what we want them to mean in a given moment anyway then the detractors of Proudhon have had the carpet swept from under their feet.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Proudhon was peti-bourgeoisie and all his works are made from this point. As anarchist he was never really against the state, and he wasn't against market.
Later he rejected everything what he said, he started to proclaim private property.

Here's one interesting Proudhon's quote:
"Workers, tighten your feeders hand, and you bosses do not respond against those that are your workers"

This looks like some kind of lunatic Bible quote.

Proudhon is reactionary and stupid - no doubt. Still he's one of the first theoretician which advocated (at least in his early works from the anarchist phase) society from down to above and federalism. His works on federalism were really god and helpful for Marx and later anarchists.

Citation and context would help since a quick search came up with nothing. I'd rather read what he wrote than be led towards certain conclusions by someone who makes "stupid" part of his analysis.

Proudhon didn't have a definitive grasp on social upheaval, but neither did Marx - nor does anyone else for that matter.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Simply, to own property is to take away from who it should belong to - society

Yet you have no legitimate authority over my expending labor for personal consumption or personal sale. The same rhetoric which goes into defending unified management over all property defends the capitalist class from its exploits over one person's labor. Others here have talked about how a truly post-capitalist society must be set up so that they wouldn't have to work at all - even if there still exists a need. Instead these users will be provided for out of hope of reciprocation. While I acknowledge few of the regulars adhere to such a bizarre belief, the conclusions of these "leftists" are similar to the defenses of capitalism.

Proudhon's principle point was that property can be both liberating and enslaving, as someone else mentioned - yet in the end, property must exist, so we must look into how we can maximize the "good." His criticism was directed at two opposing factions: the more radical post-Jacobian "communists" who were state authoritarians and the Bastiat conservatives.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ComradeMan:


No- that's not the rhetorical meaning, that's a different kind of argument. It's not like my saying "I'm right because XYZ and you're wrong etc..:" It depends on what school of thought is being applied:-

Classical- a logical incompatibility and the concept of ex falso quodlibet
Pragmatic- into which the Proudhon quote is thrown
Dialectical-materialism- all existence is the result of contradiction

Well, I fail to see how this shows the 'contradiction in terms' isn't a misnomer. And I wasn't relying on a 'school of thought', just ordinary language.

And, may I remind you that in classical logic, a contradiction has nothing to do with 'logical incompatibility' -- whatever that means.

Finally, I fail to see what ex falso quodlibet (from a contradiction anything follows) has got to do with this.


What about these single words?
Hello!
Pardon?
Ouch!
Bravo!
Ciao!

Well, you tell me (without using an indicative sentence or a clause), what they do say.


That's called intellectual masturbation.

And, in the same spirit, we can perhaps call this intellectual rape.

See how easy it is to attach meaningless labels?


We all know what Proudhon meant and what he didn't mean either.

On the contrary, as Marx showed, not even Proudhon knew what Proudhon meant. So, the rest of us stand no chance,


He was using the classical oxymoron in order to express a paradoxical truth that was obviously lost on Marx.

I'd like to know what a 'paradoxical truth' is.


Proudhon has been accused of using a self-refuting statement of stolen-concept fallacy (as above) however in Proudhon's statement he uses "theft" and "murder" rhetorically- when he says that slavery is murder it is obvious he does not mean that the victim is "dead" and when he talks of "theft" he means the denial of rights and we could add to this the Wittgensteinian idea that if words basically only mean what we want them to mean in a given moment anyway then the detractors of Proudhon have had the carpet swept from under their feet.

So you say, but alas Proudhon didn't.

Hence, this attempt to 'sanitise' Proudhon is no more acceptable than the attempts made by those who try to tell us what, say, the Book of Genesis 'really' means in order to make it compatible with modern science.


Wittgensteinian idea that if words basically only mean what we want them to mean

And where did you get that idea from? [Certainly not from anything Wittgenstein said.]


the detractors of Proudhon have had the carpet swept from under their feet

On the contrary, Proudhon ends up in the dustbin of history where he belongs.

[ZeroNowhere]

Others here have talked about how a truly post-capitalist society must be set up so that they wouldn't have to work at all - even if there still exists a need. Instead these users will be provided for out of hope of reciprocation. I suppose you're referencing the SPGB and such. To be fair, in general, when pushed on it most members will admit to supporting some sort of rationing or some such immediately after revolution. However, this hardly ever gets mentioned officially (especially when defining socialism), presumably because chucking 'free access' in there seems more like rhetorical flourish or something of the sort. But generally they won't say it's out of hope of reciprocation, just that people are awesome and already do some voluntary work, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to set up a social system based on the premise that they will do all work voluntarily. Some would say that there is social pressure involved, so presumably if you don't work people wag their fingers at you frequently. At other times, people will support socialism in such an overwhelming majority (60% of people support socialism? Nah, guys, we'd better wait for 80% before the whole revolution thing) that they will use common sense so as to not consume too much, as they set up socialism and therefore wouldn't wish to undermine it, after all, so no problems there.

I, personally, think most of the reasoning generally given is rubbish, but it's generally not said to be out of hope of reciprocation, but certainty.

[Pogue]

Proudhon was peti-bourgeoisie and all his works are made from this point. As anarchist he was never really against the state, and he wasn't against market.
Later he rejected everything what he said, he started to proclaim private property.

Here's one interesting Proudhon's quote:
"Workers, tighten your feeders hand, and you bosses do not respond against those that are your workers"

This looks like some kind of lunatic Bible quote.

Proudhon is reactionary and stupid - no doubt. Still he's one of the first theoretician which advocated (at least in his early works from the anarchist phase) society from down to above and federalism. His works on federalism were really god and helpful for Marx and later anarchists.

He was also incredibly sexist. He gave a sexist speech in a working class district that actually got shouted down, and he was very unpopular amongst the flourishing early working class movement of his time, whihc essentially rejected him. I've never really liked him, but then again I never really liked any anarchist theorists until Makhno.

[Искра]

He was also incredibly sexist. He gave a sexist speech in a working class district that actually got shouted down, and he was very unpopular amongst the flourishing early working class movement of his time, whihc essentially rejected him. I've never really liked him, but then again I never really liked any anarchist theorists until Makhno.
Even I think that sexism is big issue I don't think that its the most important thing to judge ones economical and political theories.

I'm interested about people opinion on Proudhon's theory of the state. What do you think of it?

[Zanthorus]

On the contrary, Proudhon ends up in the dustbin of history where he belongs.

Except of course for his positive use of the term "anarchism" his federalism and his anti-propertarianism etc which influenced many people and not just anarchists. From "The Holy Family":


All treatises on political economy take private property for granted. This basic premise is for them an incontestable fact to which they devote no further investigation, indeed a fact which is spoken about only "accidentellement'', as Say naively admits. But Proudhon makes a critical investigation -- the first resolute, ruthless, and at the same time scientific investigation -- of the basis of political economy, private property. This is the great scientific advance he made, an advance which revolutionizes political economy and for the first time makes a real science of political economy possible. Proudhon's treatise Qu'est-ce que la propriété? is as important for modern political economy as Sieyês' work Qu'est-ce que le tiers état? for modern politics.

In fact it would appear that despite his later fiery diatribes against Proudhon, Marx was influenced by him to an extent certainly much greater than most Marxists would be willing to admit. Marx of course, in his later criticism of proudhon, was only reacting out of fear of the ideas of the "petit-bourgeois" (Yeah, right, except of course, Proudhon was brought up in poverty. In fact ironically Marx was brought up in a petit-bourgeois background, his father being a lawyer, so this "criticism" (ad hominem) of proudhon falls flat on it's face) socialist and his ideas of reciprocity, mutuality and his anti-authoritarianism becoming more popular than "scientific" socialism and it's "Iron law of history".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zanthrous:


In fact it would appear that despite his later fiery diatribes against Proudhon, Marx was influenced by him to an extent certainly much greater than most Marxists would be willing to admit. Marx of course, in his later criticism of proudhon, was only reacting out of fear of the ideas of the "petit-bourgeois" (Yeah, right, except of course, Proudhon was brought up in poverty. In fact ironically Marx was brought up in a petit-bourgeois background, his father being a lawyer, so this "criticism" (ad hominem) of proudhon falls flat on it's face) socialist and his ideas of reciprocity, mutuality and his anti-authoritarianism becoming more popular than "scientific" socialism and it's "Iron law of history".

1) I'd like to see the proof that Marx was influenced by Proudhon.

2) By 'petty-bourgeois' Marx was referring to the ideology Proudhon expressed.

[ZeroNowhere]

In fact ironically Marx was brought up in a petit-bourgeois background, his father being a lawyer, so this "criticism" (ad hominem) of proudhon falls flat on it's face) socialist and his ideas of reciprocity, mutuality and his anti-authoritarianism becoming more popular than "scientific" socialism and it's "Iron law of history". I'm sorry, but while making shit up about Marx's beliefs, can we at least use legitimate quotes? Just saying, the Anarchist FAQ can misrepresent him while still using actual quotes out of context, so at least try to keep the same standard.

And I'm also not entirely certain that 2 years later is all that much later, especially given that 'The Philosophy of Poverty' only came out in... 1846. Whereas he still had a pretty high opinion of 'What is Property?':



His first work, Qu’est-ce que la propriété?, is undoubtedly his best. It is epoch-making, if not because of the novelty of its content, at least because of the new and audacious way of expressing old ideas. In the works of the French socialists and communists he knew “propriété” had, of course, been not only criticised in various ways but also “abolished” in a utopian manner. In this book Proudhon stands in approximately the same relation to Saint-Simon and Fourier as Feuerbach stands to Hegel. Compared with Hegel, Feuerbach is certainly poor. Nevertheless he was epoch-making after Hegel because he laid stress on certain points which were disagreeable to the Christian consciousness but important for the progress of criticism, points which Hegel had left in mystic clair-obscur [semi-obscurity].
In this book of Proudhon’s there still prevails, if I may be allowed the expression, a strong muscular style. And its style is in my opinion its chief merit. It is evident that even where he is only reproducing old stuff, Proudhon discovers things in an independent way – that what he is saying is new to him and is treated as new. The provocative defiance, which lays hands on the economic “holy of holies,” the ingenious paradox which made a mock of the ordinary bourgeois understanding, the withering criticism, the bitter irony, and, revealed here and there, a deep and genuine feeling of indignation at the infamy of the existing order, a revolutionary earnestness – all these electrified the readers of Qu’est-ce que la propriété? and provided a strong stimulus on its first appearance. In a strictly scientific history of political economy the book would hardly be worth mentioning. But sensational works of this kind have their role to play in the sciences just as much as in the history of the novel. Take, for instance, Malthus’s book on Population. Its first edition was nothing but a “SENSATIONAL PAMPHLET” and plagiarism from beginning to end into the bargain. And yet what a stimulus was produced by this lampoon on the human race!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He was also incredibly sexist. He gave a sexist speech in a working class district that actually got shouted down, and he was very unpopular amongst the flourishing early working class movement of his time, whihc essentially rejected him. I've never really liked him, but then again I never really liked any anarchist theorists until Makhno.

Unfortunately, practically all of the quotable anarchist theorists were racist, sexist, homophobic, or held some other destructive belief. Is it excusable? Justifiable? No, not at all, but it's generally a good idea to employ some discretion when we - having been informed by Marx's materialism - know why it's harder to escape these prejiduces in 19th century France than 21st century [insert country]. I wouldn't discount Bakunin, for example, just because of expressed racism, unless we're talking about race specifically.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

On the contrary, Proudhon ends up in the dustbin of history where he belongs.

I'm not too concerned with the amount of academic citations attributed to Proudhon, Marx, or Kropotkin when the interactions of workers attest to each of their core beliefs having some validity. Does it matter that a majority of our society has at least heard the name "Karl Marx" when that same population will, in that next breath, label Marxism a religion and attribute every malicious insight of human history as a product of socialism?

The name "Proudhon" does not carry a significant weight to it, but neither does Eugene Debs, yet I'm very aware that he is revered by most American Marxists as an influential and inspiring labor leader whose impact was enough that he still to this day commands some awe -- despite being a very savvy politician who weaved in Christian moralist rhetoric into his speeches.

I think what you're really waiving a hatchet at is his economic philosophy, mutualism; the man is, after all, less than the idea he promotes. Let it be known that while not as popular in name recognition as communism, it is not a discredited idea (Marx's criticisms were almost entirely rhetorical and historical disagreements) and in fact over the past fifty years mutualism has regained attraction - yes, by small, independent businesspersons, but more often than not workers who are tired of broken promises and sectarian differences and governments that are keeping them from prosperity either through smoke and mirrors or brutal command - whether a professed capitalist or "communist." Mutualism has been the conscious, seemingly popular response taken to the abuses of capitalism - cooperatives, peer to peer networks, democratic industry. Its proponents are, remarkably, not even aware of what it's called that they advocate. Whether or not these actions can dispose of capitalism and effectively free labor from its current restraints remains to be seen, but it's surely not sitting there doing nothing.


On the contrary, as Marx showed, not even Proudhon knew what Proudhon meant. So, the rest of us stand no chance,

Proudhon is not the most consistant of historical figures, but that shouldn't be seen as a flaw when he was self-admittedly interested in a pragmatic approach that could work for the workers' interest now. His was a method of laying out "what ought to be" and then arguing what is more likely to happen. For example, his anarchism is different than some later incarnations because he does not discount the possibility of a "welfare state" making capitalism more tolerable -- hence why he proposed an income tax system and fought vigorously for its use; Emma Goldman reached a similar conclusion after years of disagreeing with measures aimed at reform.

Most of Proudhon's confusion relates to matters somewhat removed from his actual economic beliefs. He didn't know how a social revolution would come about. Marx was better at answering that question, but I think he overestimated revolutionary potential in the context of time.

[ComradeMan]

[QUOTE=Rosa Lichtenstein;1621879]ComradeMan:

just ordinary language.

What is ordinary language? Common usage? In which case there would be no difference between an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms, whereas we know the rhetorical difference when the contradiction is implied to state a truth from a paradox.

And, may I remind you that in classical logic, a contradiction has nothing to do with 'logical incompatibility' -- whatever that means.

So a contradictio in terminis is not the juxtaposition of two propositions that defy logic and are therefore inompatible? I don't see anything mysterious about that.



Finally, I fail to see what ex falso quodlibet (from a contradiction anything follows) has got to do with this-

The point is that you can argue out a point of view from a set of contradictions if A is true and not true at the same time then you can derive any conclusion you like: ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet



Well, you tell me (without using an indicative sentence or a clause), what they do say.

Well if someone says
"Hello" it could mean "I am greeting you in a friendly way"
"Pardon?" "I don't understand or haven't heard"
"Ouch" "I am in pain"

John: " Hello",
Jack: "Pardon?"
John: "Hello!!!"
Jack: "Oh, sorry, hi, how are you?

On the contrary, as Marx showed, not even Proudhon knew what Proudhon meant. So, the rest of us stand no chance,

Marx did not show anything other than that he did not like Proudhon. All Marx did was apply a bit of "lawyer's" reasoning to pick at the words and used his own definition of theft as a forcible violation of property thus presupposing the existence of property blah blah blah... and anyway the comment comes from previous statements made by Brissot, "property is a robbery in nature".


I'd like to know what a 'paradoxical truth' is.

A truth that is expressed through a paradox.

The grandfather paradox, for example, would arise if a time traveller were to kill his own grandfather before his father was conceived, thereby preventing his own birth. This paradox can be resolved by postulating that time travel leads to parallel or bifurcating universes, or that only contradiction-free timelines are stable.
Barjavel, René (1943). Le voyageur imprudent ("The imprudent traveller"). ; actually, the book refers to an ancestor of the time traveler not his grandfather

I suppose we could argue till the cows come home about the age-old dilemma of quod est veritas?

So you say, but alas Proudhon didn't.

Well, Marx didn't like him in the end....

Hence, this attempt to 'sanitise' Proudhon is no more acceptable than the attempts made by those who try to tell us what, say, the Book of Genesis 'really' means in order to make it compatible with modern science.

Who is attempting to sanitise Proudhon? The thread was about his most famous "statement".

And where did you get that idea from?

Wittgenstein's beetle experiment.

On the contrary, Proudhon ends up in the dustbin of history where he belongs.

So you don't like Proudhon?

By the way there is no dustbin of history and people cannot put into something that does not exist therefore someone could take you statement and rip it to bits even though everyone knows what you mean.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ComaradeMan (do you not know how to use the 'quote' key?):


What is ordinary language? Common usage? In which case there would be no difference between an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms, whereas we know the rhetorical difference when the contradiction is implied to state a truth from a paradox.

The sort of language that ordinary people use everyday of their lives; I'm surprised you seem never to have encountered it before. Where have you been hiding?


So a contradictio in terminis is not the juxtaposition of two propositions that defy logic and are therefore incompatible? I don't see anything mysterious about that.

No, we have already agreed that a contradiction in terms is the juxtaposition of two adjectives and/or nouns, as in 'square circle'. This is not an example of the conjunction of two propositions.

And, you might find it hard to explain what "incompatible" means without using yet more propositions.


The point is that you can argue out a point of view from a set of contradictions if A is true and not true at the same time then you can derive any conclusion you like: ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet

Yes, I do know what ex falso quodlibet means (after all, I did study logic to MPhil level!); what I am still unclear about is what this has to do with a 'contradiction in terms'.


Well if someone says
"Hello" it could mean "I am greeting you in a friendly way"
"Pardon?" "I don't understand or haven't heard"
"Ouch" "I am in pain"

John: " Hello",
Jack: "Pardon?"
John: "Hello!!!"
Jack: "Oh, sorry, hi, how are you?

As I noted, you have had to use indicative sentences to tell us what these words conventionally imply; in other words they are just shorthand devices for such sentences.


A truth that is expressed through a paradox.

The grandfather paradox, for example, would arise if a time traveller were to kill his own grandfather before his father was conceived, thereby preventing his own birth. This paradox can be resolved by postulating that time travel leads to parallel or bifurcating universes, or that only contradiction-free timelines are stable.
Barjavel, René (1943). Le voyageur imprudent ("The imprudent traveller"). ; actually, the book refers to an ancestor of the time traveller not his grandfather

I suppose we could argue till the cows come home about the age-old dilemma of quod est veritas?

But, there are no truths here, just confusion.

And why do you find you have to use Latin all the time?


Who is attempting to sanitise Proudhon?

Plainly, you are.


The thread was about his most famous "statement".

Which was as clear as mud.


Wittgenstein's beetle experiment.

That does not establish what you seem to think it does, which was:


Wittgensteinian idea that if words basically only mean what we want them to mean

Wittgenstein was referring to the idiosyncratic use of words to refer to allegedly private objects, not the use of words in general.

This can be seen from the fact that you would regard it as perverse if I were to interpret his words in any way I liked; for example:

'Beetle in a box' means 'Comrade Man is wrong, as Wittgenstein showed'.


So you don't like Proudhon?

Whatever gave you that idea..? :rolleyes:


By the way there is no dustbin of history and people cannot put into something that does not exist therefore someone could take your statement and rip it to bits even though everyone knows what you mean.

You plainly haven't heard of metaphor.

And, go ahead: rip my statement to pieces, if you can...

[ComradeMan]

(I prefer discussing this way if you don't mind....

The sort of language that ordinary people use everyday of their lives; I'm surprised you seem never to have encountered it before. Where have you been hiding?

This sounds like anti-intellectualism to me. Complex discussions of logic(s) and philosophy have a specific terminology which is defined in order to avoid ambiguity and "common sense" deductions.

And, you might find it hard to explain what "incompatible" means without using yet more propositions.

But I know what incompatible means and so do you.

Yes, I do know what ex falso quodlibet means (after all, I did study logic to MPhil level!); what I am still unclear about is what this has to do with a 'contradiction in terms'.


I didn't say you didn't. Don't take disagreement as some kind of personal attack or challenge to your obvious intelligence.:)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/f/8/ff8c676c70c81ee724914a0389a38684.png

As I noted, you have had to use indicative sentences to tell us what these words conventionally imply; in other words they are just shorthand devices for such sentences.

Not really, I was explaining them to you. My short dialogue was used to show that one word can have a meaning alone. John and Jack's conversation shows the use of words on their own and not in a sentence in which they have meaning. We could get into the whole private and public meaning of words debate but I would have to reread my Wittgenstein.:)

How does a child learn language when a child has no point of reference or "baby" language into which to translate/define adult challenge?


But, there are no truths here, just confusion.

I am not confused.

And why do you find you have to use Latin all the time?

Because that's how I was taught to describe concepts in law, logic and philosophy- also the Latin term is often unambiguous in that it has not been blurred by vernacular usage- such as "oxymoron".

Which was as clear as mud.

You have just used a paradox here to express your truth that what I said was not clear at all (to you).

That does not establish what you seem to think it does, which was:

Wittgenstein was referring to the idiosyncratic use of words to refer to allegedly private objects, not the use of words in general.

Yes but then Proudhon was perhaps using the word property and theft in an ideosyncratic manner when he had the private idea and wrote it down.

This can be seen from the fact that you would regard it as perverse if I were to interpret his words in any way I liked; for example:

'Beetle in a box' means 'Comrade Man is wrong, as Wittgenstein showed'.

Reductio ad absurdum.... in the everyday sense:). Indeed I would regard it as perverse because it would go against a convention. Yet there are aphasias and forms of autism in which exactly this sort of thing occurs.

You plainly haven't heard of metaphor.

Well have you never thought that Proudhon was using metaphor perhaps? :)

You plainly haven't heard of sarcasm!:)

Listen Rosa, I think you anti-dialectics stuff is very interesting and all that but that does not mean to say I have to agree with each and every point or example. I do feel that you negate the fact that just one logic does not exist but there are different forms of logic. Dialectical materialism when analysed at theoretical level is pretty grim indeed. Anyway, I am going to post a thread with a scientfic question and I would be very interested to hear your ideas.

libera te tutemet ex tenebris et lux vestra luceat:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ComradeMan:


This sounds like anti-intellectualism to me. Complex discussions of logic(s) and philosophy have a specific terminology which is defined in order to avoid ambiguity and "common sense" deductions.

Not at all. Anyway, you are the one who quoted Wittgenstein, who advocated the use of ordinary language as a means of defusing 'intellectual' pretension.


But I know what incompatible means and so do you.

Indeed, I am just questioning its use in such circumstances. In addition, I maintain you can't explain its use and/or meaning without the employment of indicative sentences.


I didn't say you didn't. Don't take disagreement as some kind of personal attack or challenge to your obvious intelligence.

I can't quote your derivation; it won't copy. But you have still to explain its relevance to this discussion. You seem to think it obvious, but it isn't.


Not really, I was explaining them to you. My short dialogue was used to show that one word can have a meaning alone. John and Jack's conversation shows the use of words on their own and not in a sentence in which they have meaning. We could get into the whole private and public meaning of words debate but I would have to reread my Wittgenstein.

Except, you had to use indicative sentences to tell us what you allege these words 'say'.

And, I nowhere said words on their own have no meaning. What I did allege was that single words cannot say anything (except they are abbreviations for the kind of indicative sentences even you have to use).


How does a child learn language when a child has no point of reference or "baby" language into which to translate/define adult challenge?

Yes, re-read your Wittgenstein; you will see there that this is a caricature of how children in fact learn to use language.


I am not confused.

Your reference to 'paradoxical truth' suggests otherwise.


Because that's how I was taught to describe concepts in law, logic and philosophy- also the Latin term is often unambiguous in that it has not been blurred by vernacular usage- such as "oxymoron".

Well, I was trained in the sciences, then in philosophy and finally in mathematics, but do I go about quoting Sturm-Liouville theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm%E2%80%93Liouville_theory)? Your use of Latin just makes you look pretentious (see the end).


Yes but then Proudhon was perhaps using the word property and theft in an ideosyncratic manner when he had the private idea and wrote it down.

This can be seen from the fact that you would regard it as perverse if I were to interpret his words in any way I liked; for example:

That does not imply his use of language meant anything, any more than if I now use "BUBUBU" does.


Indeed I would regard it as perverse because it would go against a convention.

I agree. In other words, we can't just mean anything we like by an idiosyncratic use of language.


Yet there are aphasias and forms of autism in which exactly this sort of thing occurs.

Indeed; here is one example -- quoted from J. Aitchison, The Seeds Of Speech. Language Origin And Evolution (Cambridge University Press, 1966). This concerns a monk called 'Brother John' who, in the 1970s, had a series of epileptic seizures. Whenever these episodes occurred, he found he could not understand anything that was said to him, and no one could comprehend his speech, either. Longer seizures, though, had a more dramatic effect:


"He lost his ability to use language, and was aware of this... [as] he noted: 'I know that certain words I say are not correct but I do not know which ones...'.

"When his spoken speech was tested during a spell, similar sounding nonsense words tended to recur, often variants of the nonsense sequence tuwari. When shown a picture of a telephone...[he] said: 'That's it, there. The furi twar. No. Glarity tuware tuwa tuware ari tuware tuware tuwarere tu tuware tu'." [p.39.]

Now, I admit this is only slightly more confused than Proudhon, but that does not imply that any of these new 'words' mean anything. As one expert declared:


"As a speech-language pathologist, I can tell you that the language output of people with aphasia cannot be decoded. It's a disorder of symbols…even their gestures are affected (undifferentiated -- they tend to use the same gestures for anything they are trying to communicate). Further, they cannot use a dictionary to look up the words they are trying to say. People with aphasia WISH there were such a nice answer…there is not. In the case presented..., the patient clearly thought his expressive language was appropriate…he did NOT recognize his errors. How could a person like that use a dictionary to find the right word? He thinks what he said was right! You cannot decode aphasia."

You:


Well have you never thought that Proudhon was using metaphor perhaps?

1) You did not mention metaphor until I did; that seems rather convenient. You spoke of 'paradoxical truth', a borderline oxymoron if ever there was one.

2) Metaphors require 'cashing out', to use William James' metaphor; that is not possible in the present case -- unless, of course, we try to 'sanitise' this confused bumbler (Proudhon).


You plainly haven't heard of sarcasm!

Indeed I have; seen any recently?


Listen Rosa, I think you anti-dialectics stuff is very interesting and all that but that does not mean to say I have to agree with each and every point or example. I do feel that you negate the fact that just one logic does not exist but there are different forms of logic. Dialectical materialism when analysed at theoretical level is pretty grim indeed. Anyway, I am going to post a thread with a scientific question and I would be very interested to hear your ideas.

I'm all in favour of different logics, as I say several times at my site (so, make sure of your facts, please, before you attribute to me ideas I do not hold), but 'dialectical logic' is no more a logic than astrology is astronomy.


libera te tutemet ex tenebris et lux vestra luceat

Are you determined to sound pretentious?

[Zanthorus]

1) I'd like to see the proof that Marx was influenced by Proudhon.

The quote I just showed you shows that Marx had at least heard of Proudhon and held What is Property? in a somewhat high regard. It would be naive to think that his reading Proudhon didn't have at least some influence on:


...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.


2) By 'petty-bourgeois' Marx was referring to the ideology Proudhon expressed.

You mean such "petty-bourgeois" ideas as workers self-management?


I'm sorry, but while making shit up about Marx's beliefs, can we at least use legitimate quotes? Just saying, the Anarchist FAQ can misrepresent him while still using actual quotes out of context, so at least try to keep the same standard.

Well it would be pretty difficult to get an accurate picture of Marx relying solely on Marx himself. Nevertheless I was sort of making an inference and I don't have much to back me up on this one so I probably better back down.


And I'm also not entirely certain that 2 years later is all that much later, especially given that 'The Philosophy of Poverty' only came out in... 1846. Whereas he still had a pretty high opinion of 'What is Property?':

Well Marx had probably read or heard of Proudhon before he wrote The Holy Family, so it's probably a bit longer than 2 years. And this quote only serves to illustrate my point about Proudhon's influence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zanthorus:


The quote I just showed you shows that Marx had at least heard of Proudhon and held What is Property? in a somewhat high regard. It would be naive to think that his reading Proudhon didn't have at least some influence on:

No one denies that Marx had read Proudhon, or that he once thought highly of him, but that does it imply that Proudhon had any influence on Marx. We need to see more than mere supposition to establish there was any.


You mean such "petty-bourgeois" ideas as workers self-management?

Depends on what else is in there.

[Zanthorus]

No one denies that Marx had read Proudhon, or that he once thought highly of him, but that does it imply that Proudhon had any influence on Marx. We need to see more than mere supposition to establish there was any.

Lets run through the facts shall we:

1) Marx lived in Paris from October 1843 to January 1845
2) During this time he certainly read Proudhon (I've seen places that say he met Proudhon though I'm not sure of the truth of that).
3) Marx's ideas bare at least a family resemblance to Proudhon's, particularly the opposition to Private Property.

I think it's safe to say Marx was influenced by Proudhon to at least a small degree unless you plan on subjecting this to a Descartian level of skepticism.


Depends on what else is in there.

Maybe we should see what Marx himself had to say on the subject originally?


Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians, he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zanthrous:


1) Marx lived in Paris from October 1843 to January 1845
2) During this time he certainly read Proudhon (I've seen places that say he met Proudhon though I'm not sure of the truth of that).
3) Marx's ideas bare at least a family resemblance to Proudhon's, particularly the opposition to Private Property.

I think it's safe to say Marx was influenced by Proudhon to at least a small degree unless you plan on subjecting this to a Descartian level of skepticism.

Again, you are assuming that Marx derived his anti-property ideas from Proudhon, as if Proudhon were the only person in France, or anywhere else for that matter, who had anathematised against it. Practically every French communist from the 1790s did, as did Rousseau.

So, the only 'evidence' you have is suppostition, as I said.


Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians, he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat

Well, Proudhon's proletarian credentials are only slightly more convincing than those of Dietzgen, so I suspect Marx was being ironic here.

But, even if he wasn't, where in here is there any sign that Marx agreed with Proudhon?

[ZeroNowhere]

Technically, Marx did praise Proudhon's style, for example, his use of paradox to get a point across. That is, his political economy was in no way novel, his expression of it was. On the other hand, he then read 'The Philosophy of Poverty' and thought it was a load of bollocks, though 'What is Property?' wasn't bad.


Well, Proudhon's proletarian credentials are only slightly more convincing than those of Dietzgen, so I suspect Marx was being ironic here.Him and Engels certainly weren't being particularly flattering during that section.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zero:


Him and Engels certainly weren't being particularly flattering during that section.

Eh?:confused:

[ComradeMan]

Not at all. Anyway, you are the one who quoted Wittgenstein, who advocated the use of ordinary language as a means of defusing 'intellectual' pretension.

Yes because his Tractatus is written in everyday language that just anyone with no special training can pick up and read.:)


Indeed, I am just questioning its use in such circumstances. In addition, I maintain you can't explain its use and/or meaning without the employment of indicative sentences.

But you know you can. In the simple example. if someone says "hello" to you they don't need to say anything else and you respond by saying "hello" back. You have understoond haven't you?

Except, you had to use indicative sentences to tell us what you allege these words 'say'.

Not at all, I chose to indicate what they mean, but I could have written a dialogue without any explanation and it would have been just as clear.

And, I nowhere said words on their own have no meaning. What I did allege was that single words cannot say anything (except they are abbreviations for the kind of indicative sentences even you have to use).

You could argue on that basis that many indicative sentences are irrelevant because they can be explained by single words. I don't think it's the same- certainly it depends on the words, but it is not a universal rule. This reminds me of the issues surrounding concepts of recursion and the problems within Chomsky's framework of universal grammar.

Yes, re-read your Wittgenstein; you will see there that this is a caricature of how children in fact learn to use language.

No one knows how exactly children acquire language fully it has never been proven one way or the other. There is still an area in which we are completely in the dark and nothing can be demonstrated scientifically. So Wittgenstein's idea is at best a hypothesis until such times as it can be demonstrated and repeated.

Now I am not going to go into all the ins and outs of Wittgenstein- undoubtedly a great mind but not flawless either. A lot of Wittgenstein's ideas about maths do not all for things like non-Euclidean geometries, he would also have difficulty explaining a fibonacci sequence that corresponds to the geometry of a cone shell leaving a split in notions of pure and applied mathematics that is difficult to reconcile.

The problem with Wittgenstein's language games and theory of language acquisition alongside behaviourist theories is that they fail miserably to explain the neuro-biological aspects of language acquisition and therefore leave out a whole chunk of theory that is essential in order to fully explain this natural phenonemon and thus understand all its facets truly.

Your reference to 'paradoxical truth' suggests otherwise.

Clear as mud to me- perhaps I should word it better, a truth expressed through a paradox.

Well, I was trained in the sciences, then in philosophy and finally in mathematics, but do I go about quoting Sturm-Liouville theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm%E2%80%93Liouville_theory)?
Why not? Wouldn't bother anyone interested in academic discussion.

Your use of Latin just makes you look pretentious (see the end).

No, you think it's pretentious to use Latin- that's your issue, not mine. Stop projecting. O tempora, o mores!!! :) Perhaps there is a cultural difference here, between US and European academia- with all due respect. Certainly here in Italy there is nothing wrong with using the original terms in Latin in their context- which is often recommended because of the reason I stated before, moreso with Greek because so much is lost in translation.

There are many forms of autism and many aphasias and sadly we cannot yet decode them but that does not mean that they are undecodable no more than it was impossible to fly in 1860, it was possible we just had not discovered how.

This crusade you have against dialectics, and seemingly Latin:D, strikes me as being all well and good but may I ask, if this dialectic materialism was so flawed how come it is still so entrenched?

Also there is the problem that only one logic can be the correct one.... or can it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ComradeMan:


Yes because his Tractatus is written in everyday language that just anyone with no special training can pick up and read.

What has that got to do with his mature views in the Philosophical Investigations, which you quoted?


But you know you can. In the simple example. if someone says "hello" to you they don't need to say anything else and you respond by saying "hello" back. You have understood haven't you?

The question was not whether I, or anyone else understands them, but whether what they said was capable of being expressed in anything other than indicative sentences -- as you discovered for yourself.


Not at all, I chose to indicate what they mean, but I could have written a dialogue without any explanation and it would have been just as clear.

Again, clarity and meaning are not the issue, but what these words supposedly say -- which even you have to explain by the use of indicative sentences.


You could argue on that basis that many indicative sentences are irrelevant because they can be explained by single words. I don't think it's the same- certainly it depends on the words, but it is not a universal rule. This reminds me of the issues surrounding concepts of recursion and the problems within Chomsky's framework of universal grammar.

It doesn't work the other way round. Try telling me what your words above say by the use of just one word.


No one knows how exactly children acquire language fully it has never been proven one way or the other. There is still an area in which we are completely in the dark and nothing can be demonstrated scientifically. So Wittgenstein's idea is at best a hypothesis until such times as it can be demonstrated and repeated.

In fact, Wittgenstein's analysis was aimed at showing that the supposition that a private language is possible makes no sense, so it isn't an hypothesis. In the event, he was able to show that your idea that children learn single words by ostension is no less confused.

And this seems to imply that you are happy to quote Wittgenstein only when you think he agrees with you.


Now I am not going to go into all the ins and outs of Wittgenstein- undoubtedly a great mind but not flawless either. A lot of Wittgenstein's ideas about maths do not all for things like non-Euclidean geometries, he would also have difficulty explaining a fibonacci sequence that corresponds to the geometry of a cone shell leaving a split in notions of pure and applied mathematics that is difficult to reconcile.

Perhaps you should check this out:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/

I fail to see why his ideas can't cope with the things you mention.


The problem with Wittgenstein's language games and theory of language acquisition alongside behaviourist theories is that they fail miserably to explain the neuro-biological aspects of language acquisition and therefore leave out a whole chunk of theory that is essential in order to fully explain this natural phenomenon and thus understand all its facets truly.

You are assuming that he was offering a theory, which he wasn't. He called his language games 'objects of comparison'; they were merely ways he devised for comparing different uses of language. They certainly weren't theoretical, nor do they even look theoretical.

And, as Wittgenstein noted, the sorts of theories you mention are a mixture of 'experimental methods and conceptual confusion'.

Check these out:

Bennett, M., and Hacker, P. (2003), Philosophical Foundations Of Neuroscience (Blackwell).

--------, (2008), History Of Cognitive Neuroscience (Blackwell).

[Bennett is a Professor of neuroscience, and a Wittgensteinian.]

Or, this Essay of mine;

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm


a truth expressed through a paradox

That is no less unclear.


No, you think it's pretentious to use Latin- that's your issue, not mine. Stop projecting. O tempora, o mores!!! Perhaps there is a cultural difference here, between US and European academia- with all due respect. Certainly here in Italy there is nothing wrong with using the original terms in Latin in their context- which is often recommended because of the reason I stated before, moreso with Greek because so much is lost in translation.

What do you mean US academia? I am not an academic, and I live in the UK.

I think the vast majority of RevLefters will regard you as pretentious prig if you continue. That is because your use of Latin excludes anyone not understanding that language from following your argument; I suspect you know that already.


There are many forms of autism and many aphasias and sadly we cannot yet decode them but that does not mean that they are undecodable no more than it was impossible to fly in 1860, it was possible we just had not discovered how.

The problem with this is that a code requires a language from which it has been coded, and a translation manual. You are not suggesting that aphasics have a hidden language and a translation manual are you?


This crusade you have against dialectics, and seemingly Latin, strikes me as being all well and good but may I ask, if this dialectic materialism was so flawed how come it is still so entrenched?

I have explained why here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

But far more briefly here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1349779&postcount=2


Also there is the problem that only one logic can be the correct one.... or can it?

Who said it can? No me. [And that is because 'correct' is out of place here.]

[ComradeMan]

You don't seem to get the idea of the idea of a truth being expressed through paradox.

Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?

As for quoting Wittgenstein, it's a case of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Extreme positions never work anyway.:)

Wittgenstein has been accused of obscurantism by many and the whole debate depends on whether you adhere more rigidly to tenets of logical positivism or not or perhaps you take the more Popperian line?

Which brings me to Freidrich Waissmann?
http://www.gis.net/~tbirch/wittgweb.txt

Introduction to Mathematical Thinking: The Formation of Concepts in Modern Mathematics (1936),
"mathematical truths are true by convention rather than necessarily (or verifiably) true"
The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy (1965), and How I See Philosophy (1968, ed. R. Harré).

As for statements which are declarative in nature you cannot analyse them as if they were indicative,

The problem of the mother code- gets into ideas of generative grammar and the Chomskyan point of view that we all speak the same language with different words because we have a blue print for a universal grammar as part of our genetic make-up. Again, the trouble with Chomsky is it cannot really be proven empirically, it can only be inferred.

As for the use of fixed Latin expressions which anyone can look up if they wish I make no apologies. Where would you draw the line? et cetera i.e., quid pro quo etc...
Latin is only priggish to inverted snobs. Seeing as some of the earliest Socialist thought and movement in the West came from the land-conflicts of the plebs in ancient Rome, Latin as a language also has its validity.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ComradeMan:


You don't seem to get the idea of the idea of a truth being expressed through paradox

That's because it's a paradox, not a true sentence. We'd not call it a paradox otherwise.


Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?

A sort of whooshing noise.

You'll be asking me about the colour of grass next...


As for quoting Wittgenstein, it's a case of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Extreme positions never work anyway.

How do you know? [Looks like a pretty extreme position to take on extreme positions if you ask me!]


"mathematical truths are true by convention rather than necessarily (or verifiably) true"

What has this got to do with Wittgenstein?


As for statements which are declarative in nature you cannot analyse them as if they were indicative,

He says using yet another indicative sentence.


The problem of the mother code- gets into ideas of generative grammar and the Chomskyan point of view that we all speak the same language with different words because we have a blue print for a universal grammar as part of our genetic make-up. Again, the trouble with Chomsky is it cannot really be proven empirically, it can only be inferred.

And what has Chomsky got to do with anything I have said?


As for the use of fixed Latin expressions which anyone can look up if they wish I make no apologies. Where would you draw the line? et cetera i.e., quid pro quo etc...
Latin is only priggish to inverted snobs. Seeing as some of the earliest Socialist thought and movement in the West came from the land-conflicts of the plebs in ancient Rome, Latin as a language also has its validity

You'll be using Chinese next because of a peasant revolt in 256BC!

Fine, use Latin -- and we'll just regard you as a pretentious twerp in that case.

[Floyce White]

From my October 1, 2005 essay "Whose Class Struggle?":

Proudhon saw only an abstract "people" who throughout history all tried to get personal property, so he deduced the false conclusion that personal property must be a cornerstone of every society. In the language of the capitalist, anti-feudal revolution, ownership was a "right" or a "natural law" of which violation was "theft." The production and distribution of goods and services were not envisioned as sharing, but as "exchange of personal possessions." In this way, Proudhon created a legalistic loophole for "personal" business properties as well as their association as limited partnerships, co-ops, syndicates, and "employee ownership."

Proudhon opposed big business and the vast state-owned properties because these are not forms of personal property. Proudhon also opposed the state because police protect claims of non-personal property. Hah! Do a little semantical struggle here. Replace the idea of "exchange of personal possessions" with the phrase "small business," and it is clear that Proudhon's interpretation of "anarchism" is a political movement in the interests of petty capitalists. Since almost all capitalists are small capitalists, his words were not rebellion but apologetics. In the years to follow, the many contradicting definitions of "anarchism" by upper-class authorities mirrored the many competing property interests.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/whose-class-strugglei-t38271/index.html?t=38271

[ComradeMan]

Fine, use Latin -- and we'll just regard you as a pretentious twerp in that case.


"We"- you are the only one who is complaining I note. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Man:


"We"- you are the only one who is complaining I note.

Well, try me out; keep using Latin and see what happens.

[Floyce White]

Everyone knows that Comrade Man is pretentious. Calling him "twerp" just dates you as someone old enough to have watched "Happy Days." Honest posters won't hold Comrade Man's personality against his politics, any more than yours.

Really, RL, can't you just leave it at "Marx's dialectics were abduction, not induction"? Courts use abduction all the time--and court rulings are well known to be detached from real-world issues and solutions.

Suffice to say that Proudhon's "theft" meant "denial of one's right to possess." Can we agree upon this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Floyce:


Everyone knows that Comrade Man is pretentious. Calling him "twerp" just dates you as someone old enough to have watched "Happy Days." Honest posters won't hold Comrade Man's personality against his politics, any more than yours.

I am not the least bit phased by your reference to my use of "twerp" (I employed to avoid being accused of flaming); what I really wanted to say was that he is a "pretentious plonker", but I used an older word (one he would understand) that would not lead to a warning.


Really, RL, can't you just leave it at "Marx's dialectics were abduction, not induction"? Courts use abduction all the time--and court rulings are well known to be detached from real-world issues and solutions.

As I have pointed out in another thread, in everyday circumstances this invalid form of argument is fine (since our general knowledge of the world of everyday experience provides us with a secure foundation upon which to use it).

But this is not the case with most scientific contexts, where quite often researchers have to advance counter-intuitive hypotheses. The vast majority of these in fact turn out to be wrong, so this form of reasoning in science (if, that is, scientists in fact use it -- I have yet to see the evidence that they do) is not all that reliable.

Is Marx's dialectics abductive and/or inductive? Well, you make this claim without proof. It might be, it might not, but it in no way resembles Hegel's dialectic (upside down or the 'right way up'). And that is all I am interested in here.


Suffice to say that Proudhon's "theft" meant "denial of one's right to possess." Can we agree upon this?

No, since there is no such right in the absence of property law.

[ComradeMan]

:D Ha ha ! I was only winding you up anyway!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

But, there are many here who will accuse you of trolling -- if you are being honest.

If you want to engage in juvenile antics like this, save them for 'Chit Chat'.

[Floyce White]

RL: "...there is no such right in the absence of property law."

Agreed. Rights and its coexisting opposite, denial of rights, do not exist in communism. Rights presume property and the state.

RL: "Is Marx's dialectics abductive and/or inductive? Well, you make this claim without proof. It might be, it might not, but it in no way resembles Hegel's dialectic (upside down or the 'right way up'). And that is all I am interested in here."

My opinion is that Marx's version of dialectics is ill-defined and improbable. I am not adverse to comrades filling the gaps as they see fit. But that's not how I solve problems.

Really, the "problem" is that workers grasp that petty bourgeois massage arguments into producing predetermined, false conclusions. Logic must be mystified so that workers can be dazzled by master logicians whose only intelligible phrase is: "you don't understand."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In which case, I do not understand this challenge of yours:


Really, RL, can't you just leave it at "Marx's dialectics were abduction, not induction"? Courts use abduction all the time--and court rulings are well known to be detached from real-world issues and solutions.

[Floyce White]

This is a tempting challenge. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to give it the treatment it deserves.

I suppose that somewhere in your writings and posts you asserted that Marx's dialectics are not abduction. If so, I will read your argument if you link.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Floyce:


I suppose that somewhere in your writings and posts you asserted that Marx's dialectics are not abduction. If so, I will read your argument if you link.

My work is still only about 60% finished, so I haven't covered the scientific aspect of Marx's ideas yet.

But, since there is precious little evidence that scientists have ever used abduction, now or in the past, and in view of the fact that it is an invalid form of argument, it is no surprise then that there is no evidence that Marx used abduction either.

As I noted, we might, or might not, use abduction in every day life, but there our inferential intuitions are guided by our everyday knowledge of what is possible in the material world of ordinary experience. This is not so in the sciences, where theory enters new areas in which everyday intuition isn't a safe guide; indeed, scientific hypotheses are often counter-intuitive (in ordinary terms).

So, it is no wonder that there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that scientists use abduction.

[nuisance]

Ain't read the thread but the answer is no. The actual quote is property is theft-possesion is freedom. Possesion meaning stuff that you use without depriving society of the resource i.e. a bike.

[Buffalo Souljah]

This may be in the wrong forum; the line between politics and philosophy in this case (at least to me, a veritable amateur when it comes down to philosophy) seems really blurry.

If theft is by definition taking property from someone else, doesn't the phrase "property is theft" seem like a contradiction of terms? Property is made by exploiting the labor of the worker. However, he never had property to start with, so how is it theft?

Did Proudhon refer to theft of labor?

I'm kinda confused.:confused::confused::confused:

Proudhon is full of contradiction. COmrade Marx wrote many a critical pamphlet of his inconsistent and self-contradictory style. Proudhon, of course, thought very highly of himself. He believed his philosophy ranked as high as Newton's apple and Galileo's telescope in importance, and that "people had just got things wrong until him". Self-righteous prick...

[Die Rote Fahne]

This expression "property is theft" was seen by Marx as self refuting and unnecessarily confusing, he wrote that "since 'theft' is a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property" and he condemned Proudhon for entangling himself in "all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about true bourgeois property."

[Comrade Anarchist]

He meant that property controlled by one individual is theft b/c property belongs to all. So if one takes all property then he is stealing it from the rest of mankind.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I don't think you have read this thread; theft is based on property law and so presupposes it. So, to accuse anything of being theft is to accept property relations.

[ComradeMan]

But, there are many here who will accuse you of trolling -- if you are being honest.

If you want to engage in juvenile antics like this, save them for 'Chit Chat'.

Bene, cum Latine nescias, nolo manus meas in te maculare!:D

Oh cheer up! :) Trolling is giving people abuse and flaming them all over the place, the occasional bit of teasing thrown into a post following a more serious argument is called having a sense of humour!:) Don't take things all soooo seriously!!! Bis vivit qui bene vivit!:D

[ComradeMan]

I don't think you have read this thread; theft is based on property law and so presupposes it. So, to accuse anything of being theft is to accept property relations.


On a more serious note....

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
The Acts of Enclosure?

The problem is with property, property is not a right, it is a fact from which rights derive.

Seeing as Proudhon was referring not to individual goods as such but land and the means of production his statement is perfectly clear.

As for the general concept of theft I think we nitpick like lawyers or take the comment as it was meant. When a chimpanzee steals another chimpanzee's banana could we argue that no theft/stealing had taken place because neither parties are subject to property law? That's not to say we would have both chimps in court either. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ComradeMan:


When a chimpanzee steals another chimpanzee's banana could we argue that no theft/stealing had taken place because neither parties are subject to property law? That's not to say we would have both chimps in court either.

Of course, only if we anthropomorphise chimps can they steal bananas, but, if it takes that to defend Proudhon, you are welcome to him.

[ComradeMan]

Where do we find property law explained in the Bible? We still find "Thou shalt not steal". I don't think you can seriously argue that because Proudhon said "property is theft", meaning that most of the landed private property of his time was tantamount to theft from the proletariat, it isn't valid because of property law. Anyway, under Roman Law property is a fact not a right anyway.
Theft does not need a property law as such, there is also a moral law- i.e. taking what is not yours.

[Dean]

:D Ha ha ! I was only winding you up anyway!

Consider this a verbal warning for trolling.

[ComradeMan]

By "property," Proudhon referred to the Roman law concept of the sovereign right derived from property (dominio) – the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed right of property with the rights (which he considered valid) of liberty, equality, and security.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Man:


Where do we find property law explained in the Bible? We still find "Thou shalt not steal". I don't think you can seriously argue that because Proudhon said "property is theft", meaning that most of the landed private property of his time was tantamount to theft from the proletariat, it isn't valid because of property law. Anyway, under Roman Law property is a fact not a right anyway.
Theft does not need a property law as such, there is also a moral law- i.e. taking what is not yours.

I see you are getting desperate, appealing to the 'moral law', which might be Ok for you mystics, but not for us materialists.

Once more, there can be no theft where there is no property law.

And, I did not mention 'rights'.


By "property," Proudhon referred to the Roman law concept of the sovereign right derived from property (dominio) – the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed right of property with the rights (which he considered valid) of liberty, equality, and security.

I don't see this makes any difference.

[whore]

god, what a boring lot some of you are!

if i were to say that the capitalist, by depriving me of the full value of my labour was in effect "stealing" from me, you would surely understand what i mean, and even agree! Yes, the capitalist is exploiting me, and this is not compatible with the fullest liberty. But if instead i were to say, "property is robbery" (or theft if you take another translation), you argue about sementics about about it being a meaningless phrase!

If i said that government, rather than being the bringer of order is so often claimed, is instead the cause of disorder, you would surely agree with me (one would merely have to point to numerous wars to prove this statement). but if i say that anarchy then, is order, you would likely claim that the statement is meaningless. but while anarchism is often used as a synonym for disorder, it does not mean that this meaning is a good or useful one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Whore:


if i were to say that the capitalist, by depriving me of the full value of my labour was in effect "stealing" from me, you would surely understand what i mean, and even agree! Yes, the capitalist is exploiting me, and this is not compatible with the fullest liberty. But if instead i were to say, "property is robbery" (or theft if you take another translation), you argue about semantics about it being a meaningless phrase!

It's not a case of "understanding" what you mean, but in you explaining what it is that you mean, and to do that you are going to have to refer to property relations to tell us what theft is. So, Marx is quite right that "Property is theft" is a self-defeating sentence, since it has to in one breath accept property law and in another seem to reject it. But in rejecting it, the word "theft" (a legal notion) is evacuated of all content.

And even you have to rely on "semantics" for if you do not mean by, say, "capitalist" what that word ordinarily means, what it means to the rest of the left, for example, then you must fail to communicate what you mean by its use.

If, of course, you want to re-define that word, no problem, but then you will be dealing with "capitalist-according-to-Whore" and not "capitalist".

Same with "property" and "theft"; you will be dealing with "Property-as-defined-by-Whore is theft-as-defined-by-Whore", and we would be no further forward.

So, "semantics" has a nasty way of re-asserting itself, even for anarchists.


If i said that government, rather than being the bringer of order is so often claimed, is instead the cause of disorder, you would surely agree with me (one would merely have to point to numerous wars to prove this statement). but if i say that anarchy then, is order, you would likely claim that the statement is meaningless. but while anarchism is often used as a synonym for disorder, it does not mean that this meaning is a good or useful one.

No, I wouldn't, since this would constitute a new use of the word "order" and would be assessed on its own merits -- or not.

[Floyce White]

We are discussing the meaning of Proudhon's phrase in its context--not in our current context. As I indicated, "property is theft" is not self-negating within the context of the bourgeois-revolutionary paradigm.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Floyce:


As I indicated, "property is theft" is not self-negating within the context of the bourgeois-revolutionary paradigm.

Well, I didn't use the phrase "self-negating", but I did say this in my reply to Whore:



It's not a case of "understanding" what you mean, but in you explaining what it is that you mean, and to do that you are going to have to refer to property relations to tell us what theft is. So, Marx is quite right that "Property is theft" is a self-defeating sentence, since it has to in one breath accept property law and in another seem to reject it. But in rejecting it, the word "theft" (a legal notion) is evacuated of all content.

[the last donut of the night]

ComradeMan, please stop using so many Latin phrases. It makes it harder for me to understand your arguments. Also, it makes you look like an intellectual douche.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Really long thread... Ive tried reading through it but it gets quite confusing. Im just going to post what I think to the question.

I think first you have to think about property and where it comes from, how wealth is created. Alexander Berkman tries to explain that no one today can survive on their own labour alone and that what we produce is the work of many people.

"To-day no man can live by his own work: he must be helped by the labor of others. Therefore all that we have, all wealth, is the product of the labor of many people, even of many generations. That is to say: all labor and the products of labor are social, made by society as a whole."

Because wealth is created by the work of society, it should belong to society, but under capitalism it doesnt. Because of the relationship we have with property under capitlism, the only way for us to survive is to sell our labour. We therefore dont own the wealth we have created.

" Because if you say that the wealth they created has been taken away from the people who created it, then it means that it has been stolen from them, that they have been robbed, for surely no one has ever willingly consented to have his wealth taken away from him.

It is a terrible charge, but it is true. The wealth the workers have created, as a class, has indeed been stolen from them. And they are being robbed in the same way every day of their lives, even at this very moment. That is why one of the greatest thinkers, the French philosopher Proudhon, said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property."

Whilst I dont think Berkman ws an original theorist, he just put together anarchist ideas in a way that you dont have to be an intellectual to understand, i think it the point he makes is simple - We created this wealth but we dont own it, therefore their profit is stolen from the workers -

Sorry if ive completely missed the point but thats how i see it. I dont neccessarily think we should be argueing over what proudon (who lived over 100 years ago) meant when he said property is theft but what we mean now when we say it.

[ZeroNowhere]

There is falsehood here inasmuch as you could have capitalist property maintained with a society of co-ops, in which not a whole lot would change except that the abolition of capitalism would perhaps be easier, and workers would form their own collective capitalists rather than having specific capitalists. Of course, this means that all of the other bollocks that comes along with capitalism is maintained, such as the law of value, alienation, the law of the tendency of the fall of the rate of profit and hence crises, unemployment, competition and so on. In this case, however, the clear-cut 'theft' is not present.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedManatee:


ComradeMan, please stop using so many Latin phrases. It makes it harder for me to understand your arguments. Also, it makes you look like an intellectual douche.

I tried to tell him a week or so ago, but he just uses even more. I told him that others here would regard him as a pretentious bore. Apparently he is Ok with that.

[whore]

i read another explanation for the phrase today. rather than the one i gave earlier.

In one sense property is theft - that is, the exclusive appropriation of anything by anyone is a deprivation of everyone else. This does not mean we [anarchists] are all communists; what it means is that any particular person's right to any particular thing depends not on whether he made it or found it or bought it or was given it or is using it or wants it or has a legal right to it, but on whether he needs it - and, more to the point, whether he needs it more than someone else.
that's by a nicolas walter.
i don't really agree with it as such, but its an interesting perspective.

[Belisarius]

personally i don't really care whether the phrase is correct or not. of course it's a contradiction, Proudhon wouldn't deny it. but with this contradictory phrase he wants to make some point clear and personally i get the message (so mission accomplished). Language isn't just based on logic, but also on use (e.g. we seldom use completely correct grammar, dialect e.g., but still we undersand each other).

the massage is that owning stuff is exploiting someone else, since you have to get the object from someone else and since another person has as much right to it as we do. we shouldn't just analyse the slogans.