\nMarx\u2019\u0131n; Felsefenin Sefaleti <\/em>(1847) adl\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 polemik niteli\u011finde bir eserdir. Anar\u015fizmin (4) en yetkin filozoflar\u0131ndan biri olan Frans\u0131z d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr\u00fc Proudhon\u2019a kar\u015f\u0131 yaz\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Proudhon (1809-1865), Sefaletin Felsefesi<\/em> (1846) ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla bir kitap yazarken amac\u0131 kapitalist iktisad\u0131n \u00e7eli\u015fkilerini ve yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yoksullu\u011fu ortaya sermekti. Proudhon\u2019un Sefaletin Felsefesi<\/em> adl\u0131 eseri, Marx i\u00e7in bir f\u0131rsat yarat\u0131r. Marx, kendi tarihsel materyalist anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 Frans\u0131z okurlara a\u00e7\u0131klama olana\u011f\u0131na kavu\u015fur.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/bilimvegelecek.com.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/1-254x300.jpg\")
Proudhon\u2019un ekonomik \u00f6\u011fretisi ve Marx\u2019\u0131n y\u00f6neltti\u011fi ele\u015ftiri Proudhon\u2019un de\u011fer ve para teorisinin ele\u015ftirisi Ricardocu sosyalistler Proudhon\u2019un felsefi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerine y\u00f6nelik Marx’\u0131n ele\u015ftirisi Sonu\u00e7 D\u0130PNOTLAR Marx, 5 May\u0131s 1846 tarihinde Proudhon\u2019a yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir mektupta (1) ortak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmay\u0131 \u00f6nerir. Kom\u00fcnistler aras\u0131nda bir ileti\u015fim \u015febekesinin kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 ama\u00e7 edinen Marx, Proudhon\u2019un da bu birli\u011fe kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ister. (2) Proudhon\u2019un 17 May\u0131s 1846 tarihinde yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 yan\u0131t kopu\u015fa neden olur. Proudhon, devrime kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131karak ekonomik reformlar yoluyla sosyalizme gidilece\u011fini savunur. \u201cBiz bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l devrim istiyoruz\u201d diyen Proudhon, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":274,"featured_media":42262,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[144,38,1],"tags":[6177,2729,6145],"class_list":["post-42258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-107-sayi","category-dergi-sayilari","category-genel","tag-felsefenin-sefaleti","tag-karl-marx","tag-yener-orkunoglu"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n<\/strong>Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em> iki b\u00f6l\u00fcmden olu\u015fan bir eser: Birinci b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u201cBilimsel Bir Bulu\u015f\u201d olarak verilmi\u015f. Bu b\u00f6l\u00fcmde Marx, Proudhon\u2019un kullan\u0131m<\/strong> ve de\u011fi\u015fim-de\u011feri<\/strong> konusundaki g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini, para konusundaki bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ele\u015ftiriyor. \u0130kinci b\u00f6l\u00fcm ise, \u201cEkonomi Politi\u011fin Metafizi\u011fi\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yor. Bu b\u00f6l\u00fcmde esas olarak y\u00f6ntem sorunlar\u0131 ve tarihsel geli\u015fme konular\u0131 inceleniyor.
\nMarx\u2019\u0131n deyi\u015fiyle \u2018sentez olmay\u0131\u2019 arzu ederken \u2018birle\u015fik yan\u0131lg\u0131\u2019ya d\u00fc\u015fen Proudhon\u2019un kullan\u0131m<\/strong> ve de\u011fi\u015fim-de\u011feri<\/strong> konusundaki iddialar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7\u00fcr\u00fctmek i\u00e7in iki iktisat\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n (Sismondi ve Lauderdale) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerine ba\u015fvurur Marx. Proudhon\u2019un ele ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 konular, Proudhon\u2019dan \u00f6nce daha net bir \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca Proudhon, bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011fi\u015fim-de\u011ferini ya da fiyat\u0131n\u0131 yaln\u0131zca arz-talep ili\u015fkisi \u00fczerinden belirlemeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Marx, Proudhon\u2019un \u00f6\u011fretisindeki eksik yanlar\u0131 ke\u015ffetmi\u015f ve bu eksiklikleri sergilemi\u015ftir.
\nProudhon, de\u011fi\u015fim-de\u011feri ve kullan\u0131m-de\u011feri aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011fa vurgu yapar. Proudhon\u2019a g\u00f6re kullan\u0131m-de\u011feri ile de\u011fi\u015fim-de\u011feri aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7eli\u015fkiyi a\u015facak, bunlar\u0131 uzla\u015ft\u0131racak g\u00fc\u00e7 \u2018\u00f6zg\u00fcr irade<\/strong>\u2019dir. Proudhon\u2019un yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131, Kant\u2019\u0131n uzla\u015fmayan antinomilerini (\u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131) \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131yor. Nihayet Marx da Proudhon\u2019u \u201cKant\u2019\u0131n \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131lar\u0131<\/strong> ele al\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imini taklit etmek\u201dle ele\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. \u00dcstelik Marx\u2019a g\u00f6re Proudhon, \u201cKant gibi, \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131lar\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne insan kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n \u2018\u00f6tesinde<\/strong>\u2019 kalan bir \u015fey g\u00f6z\u00fcyle\u201d bakmaktad\u0131r.
\nProudhon, \u00f6zg\u00fcr al\u0131c\u0131y\u0131 \u00f6zg\u00fcr \u00fcreticinin<\/strong> kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131na koyuyor. Birine ve \u00f6tekine t\u00fcm\u00fcyle metafizik nitelikler veriyor. Marx, itiraz\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcr: \u00dcreticinin \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n bir\u00e7o\u011fu \u00f6zg\u00fcr iradeye<\/strong> dayanmaz. \u00dcstelik modern \u00fcretimde, \u00fcretici kendisinin arzulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 miktarda \u00fcretim yapmakta bile \u00f6zg\u00fcr de\u011fildir. \u00dcretici g\u00fc\u00e7lerin fiili geli\u015fme derecesi, \u00fcreticiyi \u015fu veya bu miktarda \u00fcretmeye zorlar. Proudhon, \u00fcretim ve t\u00fcketim alan\u0131n\u0131 birbirinden ay\u0131r\u0131r.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Proudhon, sentetik de\u011feri buldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrer, bununla \u00f6v\u00fcn\u00fcr. Marx, Proudhon\u2019un iddialar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7\u00fcr\u00fctmek i\u00e7in, Proudhon\u2019u Ricardo ile y\u00fczle\u015ftirir. Ricordo\u2019ya g\u00f6re bir metan\u0131n de\u011feri, \u00fcretimi i\u00e7in gerekli olan emek miktar\u0131yla belirlenir. Marx, Proudhon ile Ricardo\u2019nun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini birbiriyle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131r. Marx\u2019\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, Ricardo (5), de\u011feri olu\u015fturan burjuva \u00fcretiminin ger\u00e7ek hareketini g\u00f6sterirken, Proudhon, ger\u00e7ek hareketi bir kenara b\u0131rakarak, \u00fctopik form\u00fcller \u00fcretmi\u015ftir. Ricardo\u2019nun de\u011fer teorisi, ger\u00e7ek ekonomik ya\u015fam\u0131n bilimsel yorumudur; Proudhon\u2019un de\u011ferler teorisi ise Ricardo\u2019nun teorisinin \u00fctopik yorumudur<\/strong>. (6) Marx, para konusunda Proudhon\u2019un g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinin subjektif bir anlay\u0131\u015ftan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya serer. Marx\u2019a g\u00f6re Proudhon, paran\u0131n nas\u0131l ve ni\u00e7in ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamaktan ziyade, \u201cparan\u0131n<\/strong> varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 varsaym\u0131\u015f bulunuyor\u201d. (7) Marx a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Proudhon, paray\u0131 ger\u00e7ek \u00fcretim bi\u00e7iminden koparmakla i\u015fe ba\u015fl\u0131yor; ve ondan sonra da paray\u0131, hayal \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olan bir ili\u015fkinin, sonradan bulunmas\u0131 gereken bir ili\u015fkinin bir unsuru haline getiriyor.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Ricardocu Sosyalist olarak bilinen baz\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrler (William Thompson, Thomas Hodgskin, Jonh Francis Bray, John Gray vb.), 1820-30 y\u0131llar\u0131nda Ricardo\u2019nun \u2018emek de\u011fer teorisi\u2019nden farkl\u0131 sonu\u00e7lar \u00fcrettiler. Ricardo\u2019nun emek-de\u011fer teorisini, burjuvaziye kar\u015f\u0131 kulland\u0131lar. Ricardocu teorinin e\u015fitlik\u00e7i uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nerdiler. (8) Ricardo\u2019nun emek-de\u011fer teorisinden \u00fcretilen art\u0131-de\u011ferin b\u00fcy\u00fck k\u0131sm\u0131na kapitalistler taraf\u0131ndan el konuldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u2018eme\u011fin s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019 vb. gibi teorik sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131lar: Art\u0131-de\u011ferin adil da\u011f\u0131t\u0131lmas\u0131 ve eme\u011fin \u00fcretti\u011finin eme\u011fe verilmesi. Ama Ricardocu sosyalistler, ama\u00e7lar\u0131na ula\u015fmak i\u00e7in \u015funlar\u0131 \u00f6neriyorlard\u0131: Kooperatiflerin, sendikalar\u0131n kurulmas\u0131 ve para reformunun yap\u0131lmas\u0131. Devrime kar\u015f\u0131yd\u0131lar ve devletin de ekonomiye m\u00fcdahalede bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 istemiyorlard\u0131.
\nMarx\u2019\u0131n da vurgulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, Proudhon\u2019un Ricardo\u2019nun \u00f6\u011fretisinden \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u2018e\u015fitlik\u00e7i\u2019 sonu\u00e7lar temel bir yanl\u0131\u015fa dayanmaktad\u0131r: Proudhon\u2019a g\u00f6re, bir \u00fcr\u00fcnde cisimle\u015fmi\u015f belirli bir emek miktar\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7iye yap\u0131lan \u00f6demeye, yani emek de\u011ferine e\u015fde\u011ferdedir. Proudhon, tam da bu mant\u0131ktan hareket etti\u011fi i\u00e7in \u00fcretim maliyeti ile \u00fccretleri birbirine kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Proudhon, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn<\/strong> di\u011fer metalardan farkl\u0131<\/strong> olan \u00f6zelli\u011fini kavrayamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Meta olarak emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc, di\u011fer metalardan farkl\u0131 olarak art\u0131-de\u011fer \u00fcreten bir \u00f6zelli\u011fe sahiptir. Yani emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc, ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fccretin \u00f6tesinde \u00fcretim<\/strong> s\u00fcreci s\u0131ras\u0131nda art\u0131-de\u011fer \u00fcretir. Oysa Proudhon, \u201ceme\u011fin bir meta olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, eme\u011fin bir de\u011feri olmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcyor.\u201d (9) Proudhon, kapitalizmin i\u00e7 y\u00fcz\u00fcn\u00fc anlamadan kapitalizme kar\u015f\u0131 m\u00fccadele etmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sonu\u00e7ta kapitalizmi a\u015famayan bir bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131na sahiptir. Onun kapitalizmin ger\u00e7ek y\u00fcz\u00fcn\u00fc anlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fu s\u00f6zlerinde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r: \u201cKar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k … sermaye ve devletin eme\u011fe tabi olmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacakt\u0131r.\u201d (10)
\nRicardo\u2019nun teorisinin \u2018e\u015fitlik\u00e7i\u2019 uygulamas\u0131 Proudhon\u2019a m\u0131 aittir? Marx, Proudhon\u2019dan \u00e7ok \u00f6nce \u0130ngiliz sosyalistlerinin Ricordocu teorinin e\u015fitlik\u00e7i uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nerdiklerini yaz\u0131yor. Marx, Kapital <\/em>Cilt 1\u2019de k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuva sosyalizmini ve Proudhoncu sosyalizmi \u015f\u00f6yle ele\u015ftirmektedir: \u201cMeta \u00fcretimini insan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ve bireysel ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n doru\u011fu gibi g\u00f6ren k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck-burjuva i\u00e7in, metadaki bu do\u011frudan de\u011fi\u015febilir olmama \u00f6zelli\u011finden do\u011fan g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fcklerin ortadan kalkmas\u0131, ku\u015fkusuz, \u00e7ok arzu edilir bir \u015feydir. Proudhon sosyalizmi, bu dar g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fl\u00fc \u00fctopyan\u0131n i\u015flenmi\u015f bir bi\u00e7imidir ve ba\u015fka bir yerde de g\u00f6sterdi\u011fim gibi \u00f6zg\u00fcn olma niteli\u011finden de yoksundur. Ondan \u00e7ok daha \u00f6nce, bu i\u015fe, Gray, Bray ve ba\u015fkalar\u0131 \u00e7ok daha ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 bir \u015fekilde te\u015febb\u00fcs etmi\u015flerdir. Ama gene de, b\u00f6ylesine bir bilgeli\u011fin \u015fimdi bile baz\u0131 \u00e7evrelerde \u2018bilim\u2019 ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00e7i\u00e7eklendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyor.\u201d (11)
\nSosyalizminin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan sonra, anti-kapitalist k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuva sosyalizminin yeni bi\u00e7imlerinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemde bu t\u00fcr anlay\u0131\u015flar\u0131n ele\u015ftirisi \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/bilimvegelecek.com.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/2.png\")
\n<\/strong>Marx, Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>\u2019inin ikinci b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde Proudhon\u2019un y\u00f6ntemini ele\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. Marx\u2019a g\u00f6re Proudhon diyalekti\u011fi \u00e7ok s\u0131\u011f bir \u015fekilde anlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Proudhon i\u00e7in her ekonomik kategorinin iki yan\u0131 vard\u0131r – biri iyi, \u00f6teki k\u00f6t\u00fc. \u0130yi ve k\u00f6t\u00fc yan birlikte al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00e7eli\u015fkiyi olu\u015ftururlar. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmesi gereken sorun, k\u00f6t\u00fc yan\u0131 atarken, iyi yan\u0131 al\u0131koymakt\u0131r. Marx, alayc\u0131 bir \u015fekilde Proudhon\u2019un diyalektik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 k\u00f6leli\u011fe uygular. K\u00f6lelik<\/strong> de \u201cekonomik bir kategoridir. Demek ki, onun da iki yan\u0131 vard\u0131r. K\u00f6t\u00fc yan\u0131n\u0131 bir yana b\u0131rakal\u0131m da, k\u00f6leli\u011fin iyi yan\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edelim. (…) K\u00f6leli\u011fi kurtarmak i\u00e7in M. Proudhon ne yapard\u0131 acaba. Sorunu<\/strong> \u015f\u00f6yle ifade ederdi: bu ekonomik kategorinin iyi yan\u0131n\u0131 al\u0131koyun, k\u00f6t\u00fc yan\u0131n\u0131 at\u0131n. (…) M. Proudhon i\u00e7in diyalektik hareket, iyi ile k\u00f6t\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki dogmatik ayr\u0131md\u0131r. (…) Sorunu k\u00f6t\u00fc yan\u0131n at\u0131lmas\u0131 olarak koymak, diyalektik hareketi k\u0131sa kesmektir.\u201d (12)
\nMarx, Proudhon\u2019u, ger\u00e7ek tarihten ve toplumsal ko\u015fullardan de\u011fil d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerden hareket etti\u011fi ve Hegelci \u015femay\u0131 ger\u00e7ekli\u011fe uygulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ele\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. Proudhon, ekonomik kategorileri diyalektik olarak sunmay\u0131 denedi. Kant\u2019\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmez \u2018\u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131lar\u0131<\/strong>\u2019 yerine Hegelci \u2018\u00e7eli\u015fki<\/strong>\u2019yi koymaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Marx a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Proudhon, Kant\u2019\u0131n \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131lar\u0131 ele al\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imini taklit etmekten \u00f6teye gidememi\u015ftir. (13) Proudhon\u2019un tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 tek Alman filozofu Kant idi. Kant\u2019\u0131 da orijinalinden de\u011fil, Frans\u0131zca \u00e7evirilerden okumu\u015ftu. \u00c7eli\u015fkileri, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla diyalekti\u011fi kabul eden Proudhon, Kant\u2019\u0131n d\u00fcalizmini a\u015famaz. Ama Proudhon\u2019un ekonomik konulardaki yanl\u0131\u015f\u0131, Marx\u2019\u0131n Annenkov\u2019a yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 mektupta vurgulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, felsefi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinden de\u011fil, esas olarak burjuva toplumunu anlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. (14) Proudhon, ekonomik kategorilerde \u2018iyi\u2019 ve \u2018k\u00f6t\u00fc\u2019 yan\u0131 birbirinden ay\u0131r\u0131r. \u2018\u0130yi\u2019 yan\u0131 korumak isterken, \u2018k\u00f6t\u00fc\u2019 yan\u0131 yok etmek ister. Meta \u00fcretimi, m\u00fclkiyet vb. ekonomik kategorilerin \u2018iyi\u2019 yan\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur; b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcn adaletsizli\u011fi ve \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyetin e\u015fitsizli\u011fi ise \u2018k\u00f6t\u00fc\u2019 yan\u0131 olu\u015fturur. Ona g\u00f6re burjuva iktisat\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 \u2018iyi\u2019 yanlar\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcrken, \u2018k\u00f6t\u00fc\u2019 yanlar\u0131 g\u00f6rmezlikten gelmi\u015flerdir. Kom\u00fcnistler de meta \u00fcretimini ve \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyetin \u2018k\u00f6t\u00fc\u2019 yan\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015flerdir, ama \u2018iyi\u2019 yan\u0131 g\u00f6rememi\u015flerdir. B\u00f6ylece Proudhon, hem klasik iktisat\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n hem de kom\u00fcnistlerin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini a\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sanmaktad\u0131r. (15) Proudhon\u2019un b\u00f6yle d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmesi rastlant\u0131 de\u011fildir. Marx, \u015f\u00f6yle yazmaktad\u0131r: \u201cM. Proudhon, tepeden t\u0131rna\u011fa, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuvazinin filozofu ve iktisat\u00e7\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130lerlemi\u015f bir toplumda k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuvazi<\/strong>, kendi durumu gere\u011fi, bir yandan bir sosyalist, \u00f6te yandan ise bir iktisat\u00e7\u0131d\u0131r; yani b\u00fcy\u00fck burjuvazinin g\u00f6rkemi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda g\u00f6zleri kama\u015f\u0131rken, halk\u0131n \u00e7ektiklerine kar\u015f\u0131 da sempati besler. Ayn\u0131 anda hem burjuva ve hem de halk adam\u0131d\u0131r. Tarafs\u0131z kalm\u0131\u015f olmaktan ve baya\u011f\u0131l\u0131ktan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey oldu\u011funu \u00f6ne s\u00fcren do\u011fru dengeyi bulmu\u015f olmaktan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc, y\u00fcre\u011finin derinliklerinde, kendi kendisiyle \u00f6v\u00fcnmektedir. Bu t\u00fcrden bir k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuva \u00e7eli\u015fkiyi y\u00fcceltir, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc kendi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n temeli \u00e7eli\u015fkidir. Bizzat kendisi, eylem i\u00e7indeki toplumsal \u00e7eli\u015fkiden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir zaten. Pratikte i\u00e7inde bulundu\u011fu durumu, teorik olarak da savunmal\u0131 ve hakl\u0131 \u00e7\u0131karmal\u0131d\u0131r ve M. Proudhon da, Frans\u0131z k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuvazisinin bilimsel yorumcusu olma erdemine sahiptir – ger\u00e7ek bir erdem, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuvazi, yakla\u015fmakta olan t\u00fcm toplumsal devrimlerin kopmaz bir par\u00e7as\u0131 olacakt\u0131r.\u201d (16) Franz Mehring\u2019in vurgulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi Proudhon, Hegel diyalekti\u011fini yanl\u0131\u015f anlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. (17)<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Proudhon, \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyeti ele\u015ftirmi\u015ftir; ama \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyetin ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131ndan yana de\u011fildir. \u201cM\u00fclkiyet, mevcut en devrimci kuvvettir\u201d diyen Proudon, m\u00fclkiyetin adil<\/strong> \u015fekilde b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesinden yanad\u0131r. \u00d6zel m\u00fclkiyeti herkese a\u00e7\u0131k hale getirmek ister. \u00d6zel m\u00fclkiyetin s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fc kayna\u011f\u0131 olmas\u0131na, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmadan kazan\u00e7 sa\u011flanmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131d\u0131r. O sadece, hizmetin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilkesine ters d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7in \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyeti ele\u015ftirir.
\nProudhon\u2019un g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri, a\u00e7\u0131k ve berrak de\u011fildir. \u0130htilalci \u00f6zlem ile reformizm aras\u0131nda gidip gelir. K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuvazi esas olarak \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc yol arar. Proudhon, ilkin k\u00f6yl\u00fclerin daha sonra da k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuvazinin d\u00fcnya g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnden hareket etti\u011fi i\u00e7in kapitalizm ve kom\u00fcnizm d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir yol aram\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ona g\u00f6re hem kapitalizm hem de kom\u00fcnizm tek yanl\u0131d\u0131r. Kapitalizm, tek yanl\u0131 olarak bireycilik vb. ilkelerine dayan\u0131rken, kom\u00fcnizm de tek yanl\u0131 olarak toplumsall\u0131k, kolektif vb. ilkelere dayanmaktad\u0131r. Marx\u2019a g\u00f6re Proudhon\u2019un tutars\u0131z g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri, \u201casl\u0131nda … onun k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck-burjuva bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n kopmaz bir par\u00e7as\u0131d\u0131r.\u201d (18) Burjuvazi ve i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 aras\u0131nda bocalayan k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck-burjuvazi, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc yolu se\u00e7mesi i\u00e7in bir taraftan \u00e7eli\u015fkileri keskinle\u015ftirir, di\u011fer taraftan \u00e7eli\u015fkilerin uzla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131ndan yanad\u0131r. Proudhon, bireysel olan ile toplumsal olan\u0131 uzla\u015ft\u0131rmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kom\u00fcnistlerin kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131na bireycili\u011fi<\/strong>, klasik iktisat\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131na da m\u00fclk e\u015fitli\u011fini<\/strong> \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131r.<\/em> Proudhon\u2019a g\u00f6re yoksullu\u011fu ortadan kald\u0131rman\u0131n yolu e\u015fitlik<\/strong> ve adaleti <\/strong>savunmakt\u0131r.
\nProudhon, e\u015fitli\u011fin \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ortadan kald\u0131raca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ederek, e\u015fitli\u011fe de\u011fil, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe \u00f6ncelik verdi\u011fini vurgular. Anar\u015fizm, ama\u00e7lar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan sosyalist ve devrimci, ara\u00e7lar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan liberal ve reformcudur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00f6nerdi\u011fi ara\u00e7larla anar\u015fizmin kendi amac\u0131na ula\u015fmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Proudhon ve Bakunin vb. gibi anar\u015fist d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrlerin eserleri mutlaka okunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck burjuva sosyalizminin sefaletini sergileyen \u00f6nemli bir eser olarak g\u00fcncelli\u011fini korumaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>1) Marx-Engels, Ausgew\u00e4hlte Briefe (Se\u00e7me Mektuplar) Diez Verklag Berlin,1953, s.22-25.
\n2) Franz Mehring, Karl Marx, Geschichte seines Lebens<\/em> (Biografie), Diez Verlag Berlin, 1979, s.129.
\n3) Prouhon\u2019un Marx\u2019a mektubu Bkz. p:\/\/www.geocities.ws\/anarsistbakis\/makaleler\/proudhon-marksamektup.html
\n4) Anar\u015fizm, kamuoyunda kaostan ve \u015fiddetten yana olan bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce olarak alg\u0131lan\u0131r. Anar\u015fizm, devletsiz d\u00fczen isteyen bir ak\u0131md\u0131r. Ama bug\u00fcnk\u00fc anar\u015fist ak\u0131mlar orijinal anar\u015fizmden farkl\u0131d\u0131r. Kopyalar orijinalden daha k\u00f6t\u00fcd\u00fcr. Bug\u00fcn Anar\u015fizm, \u00f6zg\u00fcn anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan tamamen farkl\u0131 bir yap\u0131ya d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.
\n5) Ricardo\u2019nun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri \u0130ngiltere\u2019deki sanayi devrimi ile Frans\u0131z Devrimi\u2019nin etkisi alt\u0131nda olu\u015fmu\u015ftur. Erich Hobsbawm\u2019\u0131n deyi\u015fiyle \u2018\u00e7ifte devrim\u2019 burjuva d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrlerinin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri \u00fczerinde muazzam etki yaratm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
\n6) Marx, bu eserinde Ricardo\u2019ya olumlu at\u0131flarda bulunmaktad\u0131r. Daha sonraki y\u0131llarda Ricardo\u2019nun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerindeki eksikliklere ele\u015ftiri y\u00f6neltecektir. Marx, Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, s.53.
\n7) Marx, Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, s.85.
\n8) Bkz. Marx, Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>, s.73.
\n9) Marx, Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, s.62.
\n10) Bkz. L. Gambone, Proudhon ve Anar\u015fizm<\/em>, 1965. http:\/\/www.geocities.ws\/anarsistbakis\/makaleler\/gambone-proudhonveanarsi.html#15
\n11) Marx, Kapital<\/em> Cilt 1, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, s.90.
\n12) Bkz Marx, Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Bask\u0131 1979, Ankara, s.119-120.
\n13) Marx, Proudhon \u00dczerine<\/em>, J.B. Schweitzer\u2019e Mektup, 1865, Se\u00e7me Eserler 2, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131 1. Bask\u0131, s.30.
\n14) Bkz Marx, Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Bask\u0131 1979, Ankara, s.190.
\n15) Franz Mehring, Karl Marx, Geschichte seines Lebens<\/em> (Biografie), Diez Verlag Berlin, 1979, s.129.
\n16) Bkz Marx, Felsefenin Sefaleti<\/em>, Sol Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Bask\u0131 1979, Ankara, s.203.
\n17) Franz Mehring, Karl Marx, Geschichte seines Lebens<\/em> (Biografie), Diez Verlag Berlin, 1979, s.134.
\n18) Marx, Proudhon \u00dczerine<\/em>, J.B. Schweitzer\u2019e Mektup, 1865.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"