| |
| 经济学家日历：皮埃尔-约瑟夫·蒲鲁东 |
作者： 发布时间：2007-11-25 15:27:33 来源： 点击数：26
|
Proudhon，Pierre-Joseph
(1809.1.15-1865.1.16)
蒲鲁东（1809～1865）
Proudhon，Pierre-Joseph
法国政论家，经济学家。小资产阶级社会主义者，无政府主义奠基人之一。1809年1月15日生于贝桑松一农民兼手工业者家庭，卒于1865年1月19日 。曾在印刷厂当排字工人，后与人合伙开办小印刷厂。1837年迁居巴黎，从事著述活动。1840年发表《什么是财产？或关于法和权力的原理的研究》，提出“财产就是盗窃”的论点，蜚声于世。该书从小资产阶级立场出发批判资本主义大私有制，认为可以通过保护小私有制摆脱资本主义的各种弊端。
1846年发表《贫困的哲学》，企图以政治经济学来论证自己的改良主义思想，反对工人阶级的革命斗争。1848年革命发生以后，开始从事实际的社会改革活动，曾任《人民代表》报和《人民之声》报主编，被选为国民制宪议会议员。1849年因著文反对路易·拿破仑·波拿巴被捕入狱，被判3年徒刑和3000法郎罚款。在狱中写成《一个革命家的自白》和《十九世纪革命的总观念》。1852年获释，1858年在《论革命与教会的正义》一书中激烈抨击天主教会，在再次被捕威胁下流亡比利时。1862年遇赦返国，继续宣扬无政府改良主义思想。
蒲鲁东被称为无政府主义之父，他首先使用安那其（Anarchy）一词表述社会的无政府状态。他否认一切国家和权威，认为它们维护剥削，扼杀自由。他反对政党，反对工人阶级从事政治斗争，认为其主要的任务是进行社会改革。他的无政府主义与改良主义合成一体，提出一个所谓“互助主义”的救世良方。主张生产者根据自愿原则，通过订立契约进行互助合作，彼此“等价交换”各自的产品。这种空想的互助主义方案建立在小生产者的小私有制基础之上，其目的是形成生产者之间“永恒的公平”，防止他们遭受破产的厄运，使小私有制永世长存。
蒲鲁东的学说和政治活动对巴黎公社前的法国工人运动颇有影响。马克思在《哲学的贫困》等一系列著作中对蒲鲁东及其思想进行了深刻的批判。
（来源：http://info.datang.net/P/P0520.HTM）
Proudhon: A Biography
by Dana Ward
Proudhon is a rarity among anarchist philosophers in that he was of quite humble peasant origins. He began his working life herding cows and doing chores at home. His mother, Catherine Simonin, was determined that he get some education, however, and when the family moved into town in 1820 arrangements were made to enroll him in a school. The fees were waived through his father's employer's connections. Still without sufficient funds, he was routinely punished at school for "forgetting" the books he could not afford to buy. Although he intended to go on to study for a baccalaureate, family financial difficulties prevented him from pursuing a higher degree upon graduation and he turned his talents instead to the printer's trade, a profession which gave birth to many anarchists, but the first to call himself an anarchist was Proudhon.
By mid-century, Proudhon was the leading left intellectual in France or for that matter, all of Europe, far surpassing Marx's notoriety or Bakunin's. Proudhon, as Hyams noted (1979, p. 1), was among the inventors of socialism, along wih Marx, Bakunin, Blanqui, Blanc, Herzen, Lassalle and Engles. Of these, Proudhon had the profoundest effect upon the workers' movement in the 19th century and his ideas influenced some of the most notable later anarchists, including both Tolstoy and Bakunin, both of whom knew Proudhon personally. Indeed, throughout his life Proudhon acquired and kept a remarkable collection of friends, and as his notoriety spread, acquaintances. Friendship for Proudhon was more important than sexual love or marriage.
Before becoming a widely recognized public figure, Proudhon tramped the countryside in search of work at his trade. In 1832, at just about the time his fellow countryman, Alexis de Tocqueville, was roaming around the the United States, Proudhon set out on his own "Tour de France" looking for work. In the process he saw that the conditions of poverty which set him walking through France in search of work were not limited to his own home town. While he was able to find enough work to move from place to place, his search for permanent work met with little success These experiences contributed to an already developing senses of economic injustice. The seeds for this sense of injustice may have been planted via his maternal grandfather, Tornesi Simonin, who "had been the spokesman and leader of the small farmers and artisans in all their quarrels with the nobility: he had been particularly resentful of and ready to break the game-laws...and, as a formidable poacher, [was] repeatedly involved in rows and brawls with the local great landowners' gamekeepers." (Hyams, 1979, p. 10.) In 1833, after receiving news of his brother's mysterious death during military training after having threatened to expose his captain for misuse of army funds, Proudhon became an implacable enemy of the existing order. Much like Lenin, then, some of Proudhon's resentment toward authority may derive from a brother's death at the hands of abusive authority. (On Lenin's brother, see Buzinkai, D. "V.I. Lenin: Adolescent Rivalry and Identification", paper delivered at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the Northeast Political Science Association.)
Back in Besan?on by the Fall of 1832, Proudhon was offered a job as an editor of a Fouriériste newspaper. His work as a printer allowed him access to a wide range of intellectual discussions, and in this haphazard way he acquired a wide ranging education. He taught himself Latin and became a much demanded compositor of Latin texts, and eventually held the more prestigious position of "corrector". It was through these activities that he came into contact with various authors of the day and eventually was able to win a fellowship that would allow him to pursue his studies full time and with complete independence, despite the fact that he did not have an academic background. Such was the strength of his native intellect.
For a period of years Proudhon moved back and forth between his native Besan?on and Paris, never growing to appreciate the attractions of the capital. Nevertheless he pursued scholarly activities, producing an article on the letters of the alphabet, and on the significance of Sunday as a day of rest. In the latter article the first glimmerings of his anarchist future were so clearly seen that when his sponsors read the article, they warned him to avoid drifting into radical thought while awarding him a bronze medal for the essay. By this time he had managed to set up his own press with two partners and began publishing his own and others' works. But for his first overtly political book he sought other publishers. What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government brought Proudhon his first substantial public recognition, some of it not particularly welcome. In a characteristic gesture, he dedicated the book to the Academy of Besan?on which had provided the fellowship and which would surely be scandalized by the product their largesse had wrought. In that work "He was denouncing the property of the man who uses it to exploit the labour of others without any effort on his own part, the property that is distinguished by interest, usury and rent, by the impositions of the non-producer upon the producer. Toward property regarded as 'possession', the right of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needed to work and live, Proudhon had no hostility; he regarded it as a necessary keystone of liberty, and his main criticism of the Communists was that they wished to destroy it." (Woodcock, 1956, p. 45) To understand Proudhon's argument, one must grasp this distinction between possession and property, a distinction he graphically illustrated by comparing a lover as a possessor, and a husband as a proprietor! (Proudhon, 1994, p.36.) Property, for Proudhon is a legal faculty; Possession is a fact.
Like Godwin, Proudhon based his attack on property on his concept of justice: "'I build no system. I ask an end to privilege, the abolition of slavery, equality of rights, and the reign of law. Justice, nothing else. That is the alpha and omega of my argument.'" (Woodcock, 1956, p.46) "He argues that labour alone is the basis of value, but that this nevertheless does not give the labourer a right to property, since his labour does not create the material out of which the product is made. 'The right to products is exclusive; the right to means is common'." (ibid, p. 47.) Proudhon quotes the Scottish political economist Thomas Reid as follows: "The right to life implies a right to the means of life, and that rule of justice which demands respect for the life of an innocent man also demands that he not be deprived of the means of life: these two rights are equally sacred...To prevent the labour of another is the same sort of injustice as putting him in chains or throwing him into prison, and it provokes the same resentment." (Proudhon, 1994, p. 46-7.) Proudhon takes this principle and follows the reasoning to its logical conclusion. If there is a right to life, there is a right to the means of life, and since the right to life is shared equally by all, the right to the means to life must be equally shared. Proudhon reasoned: "Man needs to labour in order to live; consequently, he needs tools and materials to work upon. His need to produce constitutes his right, and his right is guaranteed by his fellows, with whom he makes a similar agreement." (ibid, p. 54.) Thus, society is formed not to protect property, put to protect access to the means of production.
For Proudhon, property and society are incompatible. In Chapter Two of What is Property, Proudhon wrote: "Property...is a right outside of society; for it is clear that if the wealth of each were social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all...Thus, if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; thus if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social but antisocial. Property and society are completely irreconcilable with one another. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to joint two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property." (Proudhon, 1994, p. 42-3.)
At the core of this conception is the principle of equality. Rights, by definition, are equal rights. Liberty, must be liberty for all, for "Liberty is the original condition of man; to renounce liberty is to renounce the quality of man." (Proudhon, 1994, p. 38.) He sums up this conception near the end of section one, chapter two: "... liberty is an absolute right because it is to man what impenetrability is to matter, a sine qua non of existence; equality is an absolute right because without equality there is no society; security is an absolute right because in the eyes of every man his own liberty and life are as precious as another's. These three rights are absolute, that is, susceptible of neither increase nor diminution because every member of society receives as much as he gives, --liberty for liberty, equality for equality, security for security, body for body, soul for soul, in life and in death." (Proudhon, 1994, p. 42.) This is equivalent to a marriage vow to society. To protect that marriage, property, in the sense of ownership, must be eliminated, for it is out of the inequality of property that war, violence, crime, and other social pathologies emerge.
This conception of property, as Woodcock has noted, was essentially a peasant's view of property relations. Proudhon knew little of the industrializing 19th century world. His experience was the experience of the peasant and small shopkeeper. Nevertheless, it was a vision that captured essential points about the transition from an agrarian to an industrialized society, and it clearly was a vision many of his contemporaries shared. The fame which What Is Property brought Proudhon, propelled him into the forefront of radical politics for the rest of his life, indeed throughout the 19th century and on through the Spanish Civil War. He was by far a more well known and influential figure than Marx as the revolutions of 1848 erupted. His fame led to his election to the National Assembly in 1848 where, in public debate, he drew attention to the rising power of the working class. As early as 1842 Proudhon had declared: "'Workers, laborers, men of the people, the initiative of reform is yours...The new socialist movement will begin by...the war of the workshop,' he wrote in his diary, and added another thought that echoed through the history of Latin Syndicalism down to the Spanish Civil War when he noted: 'The social revolution is seriously compromised if it comes through a political revolution.'" (Woodcock, 1992, p. 149.)
The main themes of Proudhon's thought were constant throughout most of his work. He criticized political revolutions from above, clearly identifying the darker side of the socialist vision to which revolutionaries in the Marxist tradition have succumbed. Centralized government, organized for whatever purpose, is an evil to be countered by a decentralized, mutualist economy. The federalist theme which runs through his work was designed to counter the centralization of the developing nation states. It was a federalism far different from the federalism pursued in the United States or Switzerland. It was a federalism in which real power resided at the local level, rather than being "devolved" from on high. Finally, he clearly identified the working class as an autonomous revolutionary force which would eventually win its own freedom.
Entnommen aus: The New Palgrave. A Dictionary of Economics, hrsg. von John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, Peter Newman, London/Basingstoke, 4 Bde., 1987
Proudhon, Pierre Joseph (1809-1865)
Proudhon was born in Besan~on, France, into a very humbie family. Despite a scholarship, poverty forced him to interrupt his exceptionally brilliant studies. He became, in turn, a printer, print shop foreman, scholarship student at the Besangon Acaderny, owner of a small print shop, and managing clerk in a river transport company in Lyons. He then became a writer and journalist, following this profession through ineessant material difficulties, political trials, election to parliament, prison and exile. On his death he left a vast b?dy of work, in which he tackled at the same time problems of philosophy, ethies, sociology and cconomics. He can equally well be seen as orte of the founders of so ciology, the father of anarchism, orte of the inspirational forces behind cooperativism and mutualism, orte of the sources of syndicalist thinking, 'the boldest thinker of French socialism' (Marx), a pioneer of federalism atnd regionalism, or one of the apostles of mass education.
From his study of history and observation of the world, Proudhon derived a 'serial dialectic'. Everything in the world is 'serial' - i.e. is differentiated, divided, graduated and graded, but also coordinated, articulated, grouped; everything is multiple, everything is synthesis. The 'series' is a 'whole composed of elements arranged according to a certain reason or law'. 'Serial dialectic' is a 'law' of progression and organization, a general process of growth common to matter and spirit, to man and society. An antinomic dialectic, it unfolds as a chain of antinomic pairs whose opposition is the source of all movement and cannot be resolved into synthesis. Such a dialectic of tension, or of the 'balancing of opposites', is thus fundamentally opposed to the Marxian dialectic of synthesis.
To struggle to be, to unite to be, are the two poles of the vital dialectic of every person and every society. Work is the condition for survival, the constituent 'organic law', the 'generative fact', the 'shaping force' of soeiety. Antagonism and solidarity are no more than Tünctional laws'.
All labour implies at the same time differentiation and association. In working society orte does not find 'workers' but a single worker diversified to infinity. The 'fundamental' law of labour is the law of division. There is a fürther law connected with this - that of 'collective force' as expressed in the .collective surplus' generated by association, the collective product being the result not of the addition of individual efforts, but of their multiplication when they are brought together in association.
Labour, for Proudhon, is the 'field of observation' of political economy, which studies the division of labour and its series (organization, collective force), the distribution of the instruments of labour (right and mutuality), and the efficiency of labour and its results (value and economic accounting). To organize labour is to demarcate functions, and then'to group them according to the laws of labour. The division of labour is the law of fünction; every individual worker is therefore necessarily an integral member of the enterprise, fulfilling an economic function. Starting from these individual fünctions, through a kind of integration, one can organize the entire society.
Labour is the real measure of exchange value, the only standard by which different products can be compared. The substance common to wages, investments, capital and profits is that they are either objectified labour or accumulated labour. Supply and demand are simply 'iMments tradueteurs', (translating factors) constantly disrupted by monopolies, fraud, speculation ete., and do not allow use value (utility) and exchange value (Iabour costs) to be objectively comparcd. For the 'law of proportionality of values' to be respected, a 'constituted value', a synthesis of use value and exchange value, must be created; 'society's accounts' must also be drawn up, labour seientifically managed and the structure 'socialized'.
Proudhon regarded accounting as 'the whole of political economy'. An astonishing forerunner of many later theories, he drew a distinetion between individual accounts and accounts relating to 'each type of value' ('chaque nature de valeurs') and combined them in a 'single account', a veritable set of national economic and social accounts. He hoped to establish al form of accounting by sector and by industry, prelude to a 'centralization of accounts', since 'all industries are bound together in orte cluster by their mutual relations ... all products act as ends and as means of each other'. He glimpsed the problem of variation in the 'proportion' of labour, and hence in input-output coefficients, and he connected this to technical progress. He believed that a kind of 'higher mathematics' could help in developing 'social economics', but warned against any ill-considered use of mathematics in economics.
All the ills of mankind spring from 'mere accounting error'. The 'social balance' is inexact. The gratuitous appropriation of collective effort, the inequality of exchange, the law of escheat, all distort the economic accounts. Property is at the same time 'right of exclusion and theft' and 'despotic power'. Competi-tion, although a necessary stimulant, kills competition; it generates monopoly, which is necessary in that it consolidates the achievements of labour, but which corrupts economic life since it improperly appropriates to itself the profits of .collective force' and creates poverty.
Proudhon's historical labourism bears no relation to Marx's historical materialism. For Proudhon, social and economic facts are only the 'manifestations' and 'signs' of ideas. Economics is metaphysics in action, the implementation of the ~eternal laws of reason'. Proudhon declared himself against capitalism, the exploitation of man by man; against statism, the government of man by man; against communism, 'the degradation of the personality in the name of society', and against Christianity, 'a system of personal degradation in the name of right'. All bis works are a prodigious effort to lay bare the foundations, the elements and the method for a self-managed society free of all alienation. He foresaw and proposed the building of a 'scientific socialism'.
What makes society possible, for Proudhon, is the .opposition of powers', 'mutual counterbalance'. Society must be organized solely on the basis of contract. In industry, wage labour will be replaced by common, joint ownership by all those who play a part in production, while in agriculture individually owned farms will be integrated into communes or agricultural groups, and cooperatives will prevail in trade and commerce. Through the federation of 'business properties' (propriiii.y d'entreprises) and rural communes and the establishment of consumers' associations and a production/consumption union, a federative 'republic can be created, the government of which would be formed by successive delegations from 'natural', autonornous, self-managed groups. Within this industrial republic the equity of social relations will be assured by free credit and 'exchange vouchers' issued by an exchange bank and secured against products.
Proudhon had faith only in the 'proletarians' to bring into being this new social structure, but unlike Marx he saw the emancipation of the proletariat merely as a particular fact of world history 'which is in the process of taking place'.
H. BARTOLI
SELECTED WORKS
1867-70. Oeuvres complites. 26 vols, Paris: Lacroix; Brussels; Verboeckhoven et Cie. 2nd edn, Paris: Rivi8re, with previously unpublished notes and texts. 1953. Textes cholsis. Ed. J. Lajugie, Paris: Dalloz. 1967. Oeuvres choisies. Ed. J. Bancal, Paris: Gallimard.
BIBLIOGRAPH
Bancal, J. 1970. Proudhon, pluralisme ei autogestion. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne. Bancal, J. et al. 1967. Lactualiii de Proudhon. Brussels: Institut de Seciologie. Boug18, C. 1930. Proudlion. Paris: Alcan.
Dichl, K. 1888-96. PJ. Proudhon, seine Lehre und sein Leben. 3 vols, Jena: Fischer.
Gurvitch, G. 1965. Proudhon. Paris: Press Universitaires de France.
Haubtmann, P. 1980. La philosophie sociale de PJ. Proudhon. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires.
Haubtmann, P. 1981. Proudhon, Marx et la pensie allemande. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires.
Haubtmann, P. 1983. PJ Proudhon, sa vie ei sa pens~e. Paris: Beachesne.
Marx, K. 1847. The Poverty of Philosophy. (A eritique of Proudhon's Philosophie de la misire.) In Colleeied Works Vol. VI, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976.
Woodcock, G. 1956. PJ Proudhon: a Biography. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
（来源：http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/proudhonbio.html）
论蒲鲁东（给约·巴·施韦泽的信）
作者：马克思1865年1月24日于伦敦
尊敬的先生：
我昨天接到您的信，您在信中要我对蒲鲁东作一个详细的评价。由于时间不够，不能满足您的愿望。此外，我手头没有他的任何一本著作。但是，为了向您表明我的良好愿望，我匆忙地写了一个简短的概要。以后您可以对它加以充实、补充、删节，总之，您可以随意处理。①
蒲鲁东最初的试笔作品，我已经记不起来了。他那部论“世界语言”的幼稚著作173，表明他是多么狂妄地敢于解决那些他缺少最基本的知识而不能解决的问题。
他的第一部著作《什么是财产？》174无疑是他最好的著作。这一著作如果不是由于内容新颖，至少是由于论述旧东西的那种新的和大胆的风格而起了划时代的作用。在他所知道的法国社会主义者和共产主义者的著作中，“财产”当然不仅受到各式各样的批判，而且也被以空想的方式“废除”了。蒲鲁东在他那部著作中对圣西门和傅立叶的关系，大致就像费尔巴哈对黑格尔的关系一样。和黑格尔比起来，费尔巴哈是极其贫乏的。但是，他在黑格尔以后起了划时代的作用，因为他强调了为基督教意识所厌恶而对于批判的进步却很重要的某几个论点，而这些论点是被黑格尔留置在神秘的朦胧状态中的。
在蒲鲁东的这一著作中，风格方面还算强健的肌肉占优势，——如果可以这样说的话。而且我认为这种风格是这一著作的_主要优点。可以看出，蒲鲁东甚至把他仅仅重复旧东西的地方也看做独立的发现；他所说的东西，对他自己说来都是新东西而且是被他当做新东西看待的。向经济学中“最神圣的东西”进攻的挑战勇气，嘲笑庸俗的资产阶级悟性时使用的机智反论，致命的评论，辛辣的讽刺，对现存制度的丑恶不时流露出来的深刻而真实的激愤，革命的真诚——《什么是财产？》就是以所有这些激动了读者，并且一出版就造成了很大的冲击。在严格科学的政治经济学史中，这本书几乎是不值得一提的。但是，这种耸人听闻的著作在科学中也像在小说文学中一样起着自己的作用。以马尔萨斯的著作《人口论》175为例。在出第一版时，它不过是一种“耸人听闻的小册子”，此外，从头到尾都是剽窃。然而，这本诋毁人类的诽谤书曾造成了多么大的冲击呵！
假如我手头有蒲鲁东的这本书，那我就可以轻而易举地用几个例子来说明他早期的手法。在他自己认为是最重要的几节里，他模仿康德（康德是他当时从翻译中知道的唯一的德国哲学家）二律背反的论法，并且给人造成一种强烈的印象：和康德一样，对他来说，解决二律背反是人类悟性“彼岸”的事情，即他自己的悟性所不清楚的事情。
但是，不管表面上如何轰轰烈烈，在《什么是财产？》中已经可以看到一个矛盾：蒲鲁东一方面以法国小农的（后来是小资产者的）立场和眼光来批判社会，另一方面他又用他从社会主义者那里借来的尺度来衡量社会。
这本书的缺点在它的标题上就已经表现出来了。问题提得非常错误，甚至无法给它一个正确的回答。古代的“财产关系”在封建的财产关系中没落了，封建的财产关系又在“资产阶级的”财产关系中没落了。这样，历史本身就已经对过去的财产关系进行了批判。蒲鲁东实际上所谈的是现存的现代资产阶级财产。这种财产是什么？——对这一问题，只能通过批判地分析“政治经济学”来给予答复，政治经济学不是把财产关系的总和从它们的法律表现上即作为意志关系包括起来，而是从它们的现实形态即作为生产关系包括起来。但是，由于蒲鲁东把这些经济关系的总和同“财产”“la propriété”这个一般的法律概念纠缠在一起，他也就不能超出布里索早在1789年以前在类似的著作176中用同样的话所作的回答：“财产就是盗窃”。
在最好的情况下也只能从这里得出结论说，“盗窃”这个资产阶级法律概念也适用于资产者本人的“诚实的”收益。另一方面，由于“盗窃”作为对财产的暴力侵犯，是以财产为前提的，所以蒲鲁东就纠缠在连他自己也模糊不清的关于真正资产阶级财产的种种幻想里面。
1844年我居住在巴黎的时候，曾经和蒲鲁东有过私人的交往。我在这里提起这件事，是因为我对他的“sophistication”①（英国人这样称呼伪造商品的行为）在某种程度上也有一部分责任。在长时间的、往往是整夜的争论中，我使他感染了黑格尔主义，这对他是非常有害的，因为他不懂德文，不能认真地研究黑格尔主义。我被逐出巴黎之后，卡尔·格律恩先生继续了由我开始的事情。他作为德国哲学的教师，还有一个胜过我的地方，就是他自己一点也不懂德国哲学。
在蒲鲁东的第二部重要著作《贫困的哲学》177出版前不久，他自己在一封很详细的信中把这本书的内容告诉了我，信中附带说了这样一句话：“我等待着您的严格的批评”。不久以后，我果然对他进行了这样的批评（通过我的著作《哲学的贫困》1847年巴黎版①），其严格的方式竟使我们的友谊永远结束了。
从这里所说的您可以看出，蒲鲁东的《贫困的哲学或经济矛盾的体系》才第一次真正包含了对《什么是财产？》这个问题的回答。实际上，他只是在第一部著作出版以后才开始研究经济学；他发现，他提出的问题不能用咒骂来回答，而只能通过对现代“政治经济学”的分析来回答。同时，他还企图辩证他说明经济范畴的体系。康德的无法解决的“二律背反”，现在必须用黑格尔的“矛盾”作为发展的手段来代替了。
为了评价他的两卷厚厚的著作，我不得不介绍您看一下我的那部反驳他的著作。在那里，我指出了，他对科学辩证法的秘密了解得多么肤浅，另一方面他又是多么赞同思辨哲学的幻想，因为他不是把经济范畴看作历史的、与物质生产的一定发展阶段相适应的生产关系的理论表现，而是荒谬地把它看作历来存在的、永恒的观念，并且指出了，他是如何通过这种迂回的道路又回到资产阶级经济学的立场上去①。
其次，我还指出，他对他所批判的“政治经济学”的认识是多么不够，有时甚至是小学生式的；他同空想主义者一起追求一种所谓“科学”，以为由此就可以先验地构想出一个“解决社会问题”的公式，而不是从对历史运动的批判的认识中，即对本身就产生了解放的物质条件的运动的批判的认识中得出科学。我特别指出，蒲鲁东对整个问题的基础——交换价值的理解始终是模糊、错误和不彻底的，他还错误地把对李嘉图的价值理论的空想主义的解释看成一种新科学的基础。关于他的一般观点，我是用以下的话概述我的判断的：
“每一种经济关系都有其好的一面和坏的一面；只有在这一点上蒲鲁东先生没有背叛自己。他认为，好的方面由经济学家来揭示，坏的方面由社会主义者来揭发。他从经济学家那里借用了永恒经济关系的必然性这一看法；从社会主义者那里借用了使他们在贫困中只看到贫困的那种幻想（而不是在贫困中看到将会推翻旧社会的革命的、破坏的一面）②。他对两者都表示赞成，企图拿科学权威当靠山。而科学在他的观念里已成为某种微不足道的科学公式了；他无休止地追逐公式。正因为如此，蒲鲁东先生自以为他既批判了政治经济学，也批判了共产主义；其实他远在这两者之下。说他在经济学家之下，因为他作为一个哲学家，自以为有了神秘的公式就用不着深入纯经济的细节；说他在社会主义者之下，因为他既缺乏勇气，也没有远见，不能超出（哪怕是思辨地也好）资产者的眼界……他希望充当科学泰斗，凌驾于资产者和无产者之上，结果只是一个小资产者，经常在资本和劳动、政治经济学和共产主义之间摇来摆去。”①
上面这个判决尽管非常严厉，我今天仍然担保每个字都是正确的。但是，同时也要想到，当我把蒲鲁东的这本书称作小资产者社会主义的法典，并从理论上证明了这一点时，政治经济学家和社会主义者还同时把蒲鲁东当作超极端的革命者加以沮咒。因此，后来我也从来没有同意过那种说他“背叛”了革命的叫嚣。他一开始就被别人和他自己所误解，如果说他辜负了毫无根据的期望，那么这并不是他的过错。
同《什么是财产？》相比，在《贫困的哲学》中，蒲鲁东的一切叙述方法上的缺点都非常不利地显示出来了。文笔往往如法国人所说的那样，是浮夸的。凡是他失去了高卢人的敏锐智慧的地方，冒充德国哲学风格的那种傲慢的思辨的胡言乱语就表现出来了。自矜自夸的、自吹自擂的、大言不惭的语调，特别是极其无聊地胡扯“科学”和错误地以此自夸，这类东西真是不断地刺耳极了。充满了他的第一部著作的真实的热情，在这里，在某些地方都已经系统地被虚浮的狂热代替了。此外，这是自学者炫耀自己学问的极为笨拙而令人讨厌的伎俩，这个自学者对自己的独创思想的那种天生的自豪感已经被挫伤，他作为科学的暴发户，觉得必须以自己所没有的身分和东西来炫耀一番。加之，这还是小资产者的心理，这个小资产者粗暴无礼地——既不尖锐又不深刻，甚至还不正确——攻击卡贝这样一个由于对法国无产阶级所采取的实际态度而受到尊敬的人180，而对于例如像杜诺瓦耶（无论怎么说，他是“国务参事”）这样一个人却表现得谦恭异常，虽然这个杜诺瓦耶的全部重要性在于，他认真得可笑地用三厚本无聊不堪的书181来宣传被爱尔维修描绘为“on veut que les malheureux soient parfaits”（向不幸者要求完美）的严肃主义。
二月革命41对蒲鲁东来说的确来得非常不是时候，因为正好在几星期前他还不容争辩地证明说，“革命的纪元”已经一去不复返了。他在国民议会中的演说，虽然表明他对当前的情况很少了解，但仍然是值得极力称赞的。182在六月起义183以后，这是一个非常勇敢的行动。此外，他的演说还有一个良好的结果，这就是梯也尔先生在反对蒲鲁东提案的演说184（后来出了单行本）中向整个欧洲证明了，法国资产阶级的这个精神支柱是建立在多么可怜而幼稚的教义问答的基础上。同梯也尔先生相比，蒲鲁东的确成了洪水期前的庞然巨物了。
蒲鲁东发明“无息信贷”和以这种信贷为基础的“人民银行”（banque du peuple），是他在经济学上的最后的“业绩”。在我的著作《政治经济学批判》1859年柏林版第1分册（第59—64页①）中已经证明，他的观点的理论基础产生于对资产阶级“政治经济学”的基本要素即商品对货币的关系的误解，而实际的上层建筑不过是更老得多和制定得更好得多的方案的翻版而已。信贷制度，正像它在18世纪初以及后来又在19世纪初在英国促进了财产从一个阶级手中转到另一个阶级手中一样，在一定的经济和政治条件下能加速工人阶级的解放，这是毫无疑问的，是不言而喻的。但是，想把生息资本看作资本的主要形式，想把信贷制度的特殊应用，利息的表面上的废除，变为社会改造的基础，这就完全是小市民的幻想了。由此我们可以看到，这种幻想实际上已经由17世纪英国小资产阶级的经济学上的代言人详细发挥过了。蒲鲁东和巴师夏关于生息资本的论战（1850年）185又远不如《贫困的哲学》。他竟弄到让巴师夏把他击败的地步，而当他的论敌对他施加威力的时候，他就可笑地发出了怪声。
几年前蒲鲁东写了一篇论《税收》186的应征论文（我记得是洛桑政府征求的）。在这里，连天才的最后一点痕迹也消失了。剩下来的只是一个地地道道的小资产者。
至于谈到蒲鲁东的政治和哲学著作，那么所有这些著作都像经济学著作一样，也暴露出同样矛盾的、双重的性质。同时，它们的价值只是地方性的，即只限于法国。但是，他对宗教、教会等等的攻击在当时法国的条件下对本国来说是一个巨大的功绩，因为那时法国的社会主义者们认为，信仰宗教是他们优越于18世纪的资产阶级伏尔泰主义187和19世纪的德国无神论的地方。如果说，彼得大帝用野蛮制服了俄国的野蛮，那么，蒲鲁东就是尽了最大的努力用空谈来战胜法国的空谈。
他那本关于《政变》188的著作，在其中他向路易·波拿巴献媚，实际上是竭力把他弄成适合法国工人口味的人物，还有他那篇反对波兰的最后的著作189，在其中他为了迎合沙皇而表现了愚蠢的厚颜无耻。这些应当认为不仅是坏的著作，而且简直是卑鄙，然而是适合小资产阶级观点的卑鄙。
人们常常拿蒲鲁东和卢梭相比。没有比这更错误的了。他更像尼·兰盖，不过兰盖的《民法论》190是一部很有天才的著作。
蒲鲁东是天生地倾向于辩证法的。但是他从来也不懂得真正科学的辩证法，所以他陷入了诡辩的泥坑。实际上这是和他的小资产阶级观点有联系的。小资产者像历史学家劳默一样，是由“一方面”和“另一方面”构成的。他在自己的经济利益上是如此，因而在自己的政治上、在自己的宗教观点、科学观点和艺术观点上也是如此。他在自己的道德上是如此，在一切事情上都是如此。他是活生生的矛盾。如果说他同时还像蒲鲁东那样是个有才智的人，那么他很快就会学会玩弄他本身的矛盾，并且根据具体情况把这些矛盾变成出人意外的、大吹大擂的、时而丑恶、时而辉煌的反论。科学上的招摇撞骗和政治上的投机，都是和这种观点分不开的。对这种人来说，只有一种动力，那就是虚荣心，像一切爱虚荣的人一样，他们所关心的只是眼前的成功、一时的风头。这样，那种例如使卢梭不断避免向现存政权作任何即使是表面妥协的简单的道德感，也必然消失了。
也许后人在评论法国历史中最近这一阶段时会说，路易·波拿巴是这一阶段的拿破仑，而蒲鲁东是这一阶段的卢梭兼伏尔泰。
这个人刚死不久，您就硬要我来为他盖棺论定，那么这件事就要由愈自己负责了。
（来源：http://www.ycu.jx.cn/sz/printpage.asp?ArticleID=719）
|
| |
|
|
|
|
