and I can see why Marx felt compelled to dunk on it, despite the amount of work it would have required.
I’ve only read a little bit, but so far it’s a bunch of 
I mean, just read this from the opening paragraphs:
Is it my fault if belief in Divinity has become a suspected opinion; if the bare suspicion of a Supreme Being is already noted as evidence of a weak mind; and if, of all philosophical Utopias, this is the only one which the world no longer tolerates? Is it my fault if hypocrisy and imbecility everywhere hide behind this holy formula?
Sorry but this reads like it was written by a smug 
user. I get the distinct impression that Proudhon doesn’t want to be understood, he wants to be revered. He would have fit right into 2010 r/atheism.
Also I’m sorry if anyone catches strays from this post, I don’t personally mind if you like Proudhon, but I might judge you for it
You must log in or register to comment.
You could make a series of posts with funny quotes.
I think that I couldn’t do better than Marx did in “Poverty of Philosophy”. Actually the reason I’m reading Proudhon is firstly to evaluate the fairness of Marx’s critique, and secondly to understand why Marx felt it was necessary to respond in terms of Marx’s own theories
Report back any findings! I’ve been noticing a lot of Marx’s dunking of Proudhon in Capital and the Gundrisse when it comes to money, but I haven’t read Proudhon so I’m just taking Karl at his word. It’s good to go back to the source.
