Friday, February 08, 2008


5positivement he did not mean history according to the order of time, ie, according to Mr. Proudhon, the historic succession in which classes have arisen. (すなわち,プルードン氏の言によると(諸カテゴリーがそのなかに自己を顕現したところの)歴史的継起を,)
"There are none."

The order in which it gives economic classes is no longer the order in which they s'engendrent each other, economic developments are not the result of the changes itself.

"Faux.Apprécier at fair value logic, this is not to deny the logic."

In consequence accordingly, it was the century that belonged to the principle, not the principle that belonged to the century.


"Yes you talk about that? When I say positively to the contrary? "

Mr. Proudhon did not even have enough advanced along the road to traverse that takes the ideologue to win the high road of history.

"So this was my misfortune to think again like you!
Have I ever said that the principles are other things that representation intellectual, not the cause of the facts?
Your fifth point is a libelous charge.
The real meaning of the book of Marx, It is a regret that quepartout I think like him, and that I may have said before him.
It ignores the reader to believe that it was Marx who, after reading me, sorry to think like me! What man!


Our that, he invented a new reason, (そうするために彼は,一つのあらたな理性を発明した.)

"Are you kidding always in advance: start by being right."

(このようなことばの入れかえには,もはや, (プルードン氏の名において)われわれを驚かしうるほどのものは一つもない.…



"Here I am still guilty of worship to Providence!…"

Successive generations transformed (…事実のありふれた言いかえ方の一つである) achievements of the generations ahead.

"What is thisーchicane? -- Generations turn! - I tell myself that the principle mème unit, government, in all its manifestations - I do not know what it is like transformation.
The 89-France has transformed its absolute monarch in constitutional monarch. Soil. That is your style.
I say, on my side, that the State, 89, has régularisré the division of political powers that existed before 89.
The reader judge.
The sixth observation falls on Hegel, and it relates to nothing. "

Thus, to judge well production feudal (だから,封建的生産について正しい判断をくだすために,), was to be seen as a mode of production based on antagonism.
"Does Marx claim to give all this as his own, as opposed to something that I said contraitre?"

Ascending (たえず増大するプルレタリアート).

"But this is me!"

"Marx is as Vidal."
(これらの理論家たちは, (被抑圧階級の欲求にそなえてそれにこたえるため,)もろもろの体系を一時のまにあわせにつくり,) and run after a regenerative science.

"Plagiarism in my section I (er)."




"Come on, dear Marx, you are in bad faith, and all at once you know nothing."
(本来の意味での機械は,一八世紀末から存在している.機械を分業の反定立と考えたり,細分された労働の統一を回復する総合と考えたりするほど,ばかげたことはない. )

"I maintain that."

"I maintain that."

The machine is a meeting of the working tools, and not at all a combination of work for the worker himself.

When, for the division of labor, every operation has been reduced to the use of a simple instrument, the reunion of all these instruments put into action by a single engine, was - a machine [7]. Babbage, Paris , 1833. (分業によって…バビッジ,パリ, 1833)

"So the machine comes after the division."

Tools simple accumulation (簡単な道具,これらの道具の集積)
Tools, tools compounds, setting in motion a tool composed of a single-engine manual, by man, setting in motion of these instruments by the forces of nature, machine, machinery system with a PLC for engine - that the walking machines.

"So the workshop group that parts of the work also comes after division."

The concentration of the means of production and the division of labor are also inseparable from each other than they are, in the political system, the concentration of government and the division of private interests. (生産諸用具の集中…不可分である.)

"Without doubt, this is only a logical sequence."

England, with the concentration of land, the instruments of agricultural labor, also the division of labor and agricultural mechanics applied to the land. France, which has the division of instruments, the system piecemeal, nor has generally division of labour or farm machinery application to the land.

Mr. Proudhon, the concentration of working tools is the negation of the division of labour.


"Well, this is explained in my theory perfectly, as the parallel development of wealth and poverty."

"Absurd, as dishonouring opinion that believes the balance of trade by the harassment of customs."

Substitute art mechanical manpower and replace the division of labor between the craftsmen through analysis of a process in its principles constituents.

"One is that the consequence of the other, and everything that is said is necessary first to the second."

And which assigns a worker to the task of shaping the head of a pin, and another one to sharpen the cutting edge, working with the boring uniformity énerve ...

"Very well: I have marked this opposition - the degradation of the working class is more advanced in what you call automatic system that A in that. Smith called divisionーabout me, I have marked these two degrees by the Division, and machinery.

I said, the Division of Labor fragmented, mutilates, scatters man - the machines enslave: it is exactly the same thing as Dr Ure. (労働者の堕落は,スミスが分割とよぶものにおけるよりも,あなた[マルクス]が自動体系とよぶものにおける方が,より以上すすむのである.私についていえば,私は,分割と機械によって,これら二つの程度を示したのである.細分化され,ばらばらにされた分業は,人間を分散させる.機械は,人間を隷属させる.これは,ドクトゥールユアとまったく同じことである,と私は,のべたのである). "

No comments: