Talk:Pierre-Joseph Proudhon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

A poor article

This article is not as informative as it should be, probably reflecting the childish squabbling in this ridiculously long talk page.

Anarchist

I removed this statement for discussion. Maybe it should read "probably" the first person, or the first person in written history or some such.

"In the same book, he became the first person to call himself an anarchist, a word which had previously been used as a term of abuse during the French Revolution."

Mutualism

Is mutualism nothing more than the thought of Proudhon, or is it a more extensive tradition? The article links to mutualism, but I think this is inappropriate since mutualism is a biology article. I would like to see this clarified, but I am not familiar enough with this field. AdamRetchless 22:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Mutualism is a biology article. Mutualism (economic theory) is the economic article.

Proudhon's anti-semitism

Yes, Proudhon was anti-semitic, no none of the sources you are providing are either primary, nor do any of them point to a primary source. It is all fine and dandy that the quote exists in the article you are pointing to, but unless that article itself has a citation for where Proudhon said it, then it is just heresay. Kev 04:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I included the source of the claim and you're still deleting it. Do something constructive for a change will you? All I ever see you doing is following me around Wikipedia and nitpicking for no apparent reason except to be a pain. You're really annoying. Write an article or something. RJII 03:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly do not follow you around wikipedia. You have trashed a lot of articles that I have not even touched, but when you come and make these lame edits on the anarchism pages I feel obliged to correct you. Your "source" is secondary, for a quote from Proudhon himself. In such a case where the comments by Proudhon were made in conversation perhaps there would be some justification for not including a primary source, but that is not the case here. What is more, the secondary sources you refer to also include no primary source, making this nothing more than heresay. This is an encyclopedia RJ, not a catalog of heresay. Find the actual sources and I would be happy to let the latter edit stand, though the former is still inappropriate because you put it in the intro. Kev 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

RJs source

RJ, you posted this, 'Also, in Cesarisme et Christianisme Proudhon states: "The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer, neither a farmer nor an industrial nor even a true merchant. He is an intermediary, always fraudulent and parasitic, who operates, in trade as in philosophy, by means of falsification, counterfeiting, horse-dealing. He knows but the rise and fall of prices, the risk of transport, the incertitude of crops, the hazard of demand and supply. His policy in economics has always been entirely negative, entirely usurious; it is the evil principle, Satan, Ahriman, incarnated in the race of Sem."

As you already know, you have consistently thrown out evidence that I have procured when I have been unable to provide an exact page number, having assumed bad faith on my part and refered to me as a liar. As such, I feel I must require the same evidence from you, or an admission on your part that such evidence is not required and an agreement that you will no longer block the evidence I provide simply because it lacks a page number. So, please provide a page number in this case, or agree to stop deleting my evidence on that basis. Kev 21:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There's another lie from you. I have never requested that you provide a page number for anything. I've only requested that you provide the name of your sources and a quote when you claim someone said something. And, it's a a good thing I've requested it, as we have found that you were misrepresenting your source. Wikipedia works a lot better when people are honest. RJII 02:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

A lie, eh? "[1]

Ok, let's see a source then. RJII 15:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are a maroon RJ, Trumpeter (1992) ISSN: 0832-6193 Joan Clark Kev 16:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see her saying that in the book. Can you point to a quote? RJII 16:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Its not a book, and you clearly don't know how to look things up. Its an article in a zine, the article is called World Wide Web, since you don't know how to type numbers apparently. Kev 16:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, where in the article does it say that. I'd like a quote. Otherwise, we'll have to assume you're lying. RJII 17:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean the source is valid? She doesn't even have an article in that [7] RJII 13:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)]

Not only does this clearly show that you assume bad faith, and that you assumed I was a liar when you were unable to figure out how to use an ISSN number, but it also has the bonus of showing that you have a double standard. When you are too stupid to find a quote you remove it from an article, but when you refuse to provide a page number for a quote you are citing you act as if some crime is being committed when someone points out your inability to use proper citation.

At this point I'll accept a page number for the Proudhon quote, or an apology for the Joan Clark quote. Otherwise, I'll just have to apply your own very high standards and "assume you are lying". Kev 15:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So where is the evidence that I demanded a page number from you? There is none. It didn't happen. You lied. You're becoming increasingly volative and disruptive on Wikipedia. I know from experience with you to assume "bad faith." You even participated in plagiarism in the mutualism (economic theory) article. You're a problem user. RJII 16:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore this continued obsession you have with my person RJ, and your baseless allegations and purposeful misrepresentations. Kev 05:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This is all a bit daft. Bernard Lewis cites Proudhon's anti-semitism in his "Semites and Anti-Semites" (p111). I don't have the book, but using Amazon.com's search inside facility, his reference reads as follows: "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Césarisme et christianisme (Paris, 1883), 1: 39", which I assume means chapter or volune 1, p39. If that's not good enough, cite Lewis. The date of publication should also be noted - it came out posthumously. --Dannyno 09:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is all a bit daft (actually, I'd consider that an understatement), but for a different reason. So we've established with proper sources that Proudhon was an anti-semite, but is it really relevant? Is anti-semitism a significant part of his legacy? Is he substantially more anti-semitic than others of his time? I could see a mention of Prouhdon's anti-semitism being germane to a discussion of his stance on egalitarianism, but placing it in a separate heading with no context and with no indication of its relation with his wider legacy comes off to me as little more than a "reductio ad hilterum" attack on Proudhon and his philosophies. Joshua Nicholson 22:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Proudhon apparently wanted others to know he was an anti-semite or he wouldn't have made such statements in his book Césarisme et christianisme. Is it notable he was an anti-semite? I think so. Also, it's not necessarily an "attack"; I'm sure there are anti-semites out there that like him all the more for his stance. RJII 16:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, he said some anti-semitic things in a public forum. He was an anti-semite. But the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to create a catalogue who is or is not anti-semitic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information about significant subjects and to put that information into an appropriate context. The "Anti-Semitism" paragraph in the article performs the first function, but not the second. There is no context to the discussion of Proudhon's anti-semitism and no indication that his anti-semitic statements had any influence whatsoever on other thinkers, rulers, or the public of his time. Anti-semitic beliefs were at that time not a particularly rare thing, so mentioning them in a biographical article is not relevant unless the subject of the biography is either known for his anti-semitism or influence anti-semitic thought. Alternatively, a discussion of Proudhon's anti-semitic beliefs as they relate to his other, more significant and influential, ideas would also be quite acceptable. For examples of ways to expand the section that would make it worth keeping, see H.P._Lovecraft#Race.2C_Class.2C_and_Sex and Henry_Ford#Anti-Semitism_and_The_Dearborn_Independent. Joshua Nicholson 20:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is he described as a "libertarian socialist"? That is a contradiction in terms! - Anon 24.44.151.58

Not according to the libertarian socialists. That Proudhon is generally considered a socialist is well documented, that his beliefs are consistent with libertarianism is plain and also documented. The article had previously only refered to him as a socialist, like most historical texts do, but libertarian socialist is more accurate. Revkat 03:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This has been said a million times already but "Libertarian Socialism" is not a contradiction at all except for Americans. America has a different way of using the word "Libertarian" which, in other countries, is equivilant to the world "liberal" So actually, Libertarian Capitalism is a contradiction in most places.- FionMacCumhail

Hello. I am french. The use of the word "libertarian" in french is rising in France. Anarcho-capitalists (rare some are here : http://www.liberaux.org/index.php?) now call themselves "libertariens" because "libertaires" are often leftists but the word "libertarian" is still often translated by "libertaire". Proudhon tried to call his thinking "libertarisme" but the word had no success. Apollon 16:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

They should think of a new name cause its taken lol--FionMacCumhail

Property is freedom?

Proudhon declared that “property is theft”, “property is freedom”, and “property is impossible”.

Okay, the theft and impossible bits are from "What is Property?", but where is the freedom part? I can't find it in that book, and there doesn't seem to be a readily available source anywhere. It is important to know whether this declaration was from early in Proudhon's life, when he was radical, or from his late turn to conservatism and support of the state/property. He definitely thought that possession was a guarantor of freedom early on, but as he went to great pains to make clear he felt that possession was distinct from property. Revkat 03:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct, "property is freedom" does *not* come from "Property?" It comes from "System of Economical Contradictions" and is used to justify possession rather than property. BlackFlag 08:14 4, April 2006 (UTC).

Speaking of his "late turn to conservatism and support of the state/property", I've found information on how, but not why...especially none that I would fully trust. I think his corruption (as far as I can tell) is absolutely insane. Could you possibly enlighten me on this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bus68 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting of new edits

I did a huge amount of work in fixing a lot of incorrect claims made in the article (looking at the history I see that most were made by user RJ) rather than just reverting it to previous versions that were more accurate. Then this same user simply reverts my work, saying only, "revert to Playerplace. Proudhon supports property."

First of all, the article as I rewrote it did not claim that Proudhon absolutely rejected property, it made clear that he distinguished between two different kinds of property, one legitimate and the other not. Second of all, Proudhon did in fact reject normative property claims, anyone who has read him must already know this:

PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Property is impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing

Property is impossible because wherever it exists Production costs more than it is worth.

Property is impossible, because, with a given capital, Production is proportional to labor, not to property.

Property is impossible, because it is Homicide.

Yes, I have attacked property, and shall attack it again

PROPERTY IS ROBBERY

The people finally legalized property. God forgive them, for they knew not what they did!

There is simply no way that the previous version of the article, which barely mentioned his deep animosity to property customs of his time and ours, can stand up to scrutiny. Did he support a form of property? Yes. Did he believe that this form of property was entirely distinct from property as we generally use the term? Yes. Did he reject property in many ways at many times, over and over? Yes. The article as I edited it makes all of these facts clear, the previous one did not.

Please, if you are interested in improving these articles, take the time to discuss your reverts or, at the very least, comment on what you find wrong with the changes and back your claims. The article as it existed before was obviously written mostly by someone who didn't understand Proudhon, it even mixed up his later views on property as a counter-balance to the state he supported and claimed that he did not even advocate the removal of the state! This is plainly a misunderstanding by someone who has only read bits and pieces of his work, confusing his later more conservative and reactionary views with his earlier more radical views, apparently thinking that it was all from one man who never changed his mind about anything. The article as I rewrote it plain that Proudhon grew more reactionary and less anti-authortarian in his later years, unlike the previous version backed it up with quotes in their context. If you want a source for any of the changes I made feel free to ask and I would be happy to provide. Until then, please don't just revert my work until you have bothered to discuss it. Revkat 06:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Your changes only cloud the issue and leave one with the impression that Proudhon opposes property. Proudhon is a strong supporter of private property (property of an individual). The article made that pretty clear and you only made it less clear. There is no need for such confusion. The matter is just that Proudhon initially called "property" by the term "possession," but that is still property as property is ordinarily defined --that to which one has exclusive legitimate right. Later he adopted the normal terminology, but did not change his philosophy. He, throughout, holds that individuals may rightfully own things --that they may have property --regardless of whether he was calling it "possession" or "property" in various writings. RJII 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you ignoring all of the quotes above? It is not clouding issues to demonstrate that Proudhon rejected normative property, he spent several books and many chapters making this clear over and over. And this is not just a matter of Proudhon initially calling it possession and later calling it property, by the time he abandoned possession he had also begun to actively support the state (as a quote I included made clear), many historians (I would be happy to document) have noted that his philosophy changed a great deal, becoming far more conservative, and his support for property also increased far beyond what it had been.

In fact, far from my edits clouding things, Proudhon's position will remain clouded if the article continues to glance over his arguments against entitlement property in favor of possessive property. That the distinction seems to make no difference to you is not relevant, it was of fundamental important to Proudhon, and it is Proudhon we are trying to describe in this article. Revkat 07:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's see some historians that you would be happy to document that say that Proudhon supported government protection of unused land then. RJII 07:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That isn't what I claimed? I said that they noted that he began to actively support the state, where did you get the unused land bit from?

And you just reverted me again, you simply did a partial revert this time. But those parts I changed are still wrong for the same reasons they were before. First, you put a quote into the article that is already there, I included it in the section describing his more to more conservative politics. Second, it is simply not true that proudhon's arguments against property were based only on state titles to unused land, I don't even know where you get that from. His arguments against property were that it leads to profit taking, social instability, immorality, etc, etc. Have you read any of them? Many are found in chapter 4 of What is Property, but I can refer you to lots of other ones if you would like. Further, you changed my sentence about his many arguments against property to arguments against unused land title, which again is simply wrong, his arguments against property went far beyond land titles. You removed for no reason my sentence on possession, and you changed the order of my sentence after bumping back the quote I provided. Are you simply trying to work against me, or not even taking note that there are other editors here? Until you can justify this I'm reverting back the section you reverted, and removing the redundant quote. Revkat 07:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not about arguments for or against property. This is about how he was defining property. He was defining it as government-granted title to unused land ..inititally. Later he used it in the ordinary way ...that which belongs to somebody. In the quote where Proudhon is expressing support for property, he's not expressing support for protection of unused land. RJII 07:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This is simply untrue, Proudhon did not define property in "What is Property" or elsewhere exclusively as government-granted title to unused land. You are going to have to document that claim, everything I've read suggests that he felt that propertarian claims themselves were claims to governance, and his definitions do not center around either the state or land: "The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for all these titles are synonymous -- imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?" (What is Property)

It appears to me as though you are coming at this from a reading of Proudhon highly selective of an anarcho-capitalist point of view, since it would be in their best interests to insist that Proudhon only disagreed with state granted property titles. But that simply isn't the case. I would like to see your evidence in support of this claim, then I will provide further quotes against it or see if your evidence can be put in a better context. Revkat 08:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what anarcho-capitalism has to do with anything. Proudhon was an individualist anarchist. He supported property. It's hard to believe that you're familiar with Proudhon if you don't know this. Proudhon supports private ownership of the produce of labor. In other words, he supports private property. He was against government-backed property in unused land. Let's look at your quote: "The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for all these titles are synonymous." Indeed, preventing others from having access to unused land *is* government whether it's by an individual or a large organization. How about a quote from an individualist? "By property Proudhon means property as it exists under government privilege, i.e. property gained not through labour or the exchange of the products of labour (which he favours), but through the legal privileges bestowed by government on idle capital." [2] Or, " Proudhon was not against private property-his famous statement that "property is robbery" simply meant that privilege was robbery, that property had come to mean not only mere possession but monopoly privileges. The private property of privilege called forth and commanded the State and the government and, in order actually to establish free competition, free trade, and free contract, the government itself, instrument of privilege and monopoly must be abolished." [3] Or, "In 1840 he declared that Property is Theft, but he went on to claim that Property is Freedom. He saw no contradiction between these two slogans, since the first related to the landowner and capitalist whose ownership derived from conquest or exploitation and was only maintained through the state, its property laws, police and army, while the second was concerned with the peasant or artisan family with a natural right to a home, to the land it could cultivate and to the tools of a trade, but not to ownership or control of the homes, land or livelihoods of others." [4] It's well-known among those familiar with Proudhon that he supports property. You seem to think that if it's the produce of labor that an individual owns that it's not property. But, that's only the case if you use Proudhon's terminology in What is Property?. It should be made clear to the reader that Proudhon supported property --he just had his own idiosyncratic name for it in that treatise. You can't have trade without property. Proudhon supported trade among individuals. He was a market anarchist. RJII 16:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course he was a market anarchist, who is claiming otherwise? Not only did I not state that Proudhon did not support property, but if you actually read what I wrote to you above I state the exact opposite, that he did support property, both in the article and in my replies to you here. Are you actually reading what I'm writing to you here? I can't help but note that in all your sources you go to third party texts. You can't seem to actually quote Proudhon on this issue, but only those who are interpreting him. Even in that, some of your quotes do not support your contention but mine. Notice above how I claim that Proudhon believed property was a form of government, rather than necessarily backed by the governemnt? "The private property of privilege called forth and commanded the State" and your second does not indicate that the unjust private property originated from state granted titles, but only that it was backed by the state, "since the first related to the landowner and capitalist whose ownership derived from conquest or exploitation and was only maintained through the state, its property laws, police and army,". One can have property laws, police, and army in the absence of the state according to several libertarian ideologies, so you aren't offering up any counter evidence here, but only evidence in support of my thesis.

I did not claim that the produce of labor is not property. I claimed that Proudhon distinguished between two kinds of property, one that stemmed from the produce of labor and one that did not. Both are types of property, even according to Proudhon, but one is illegitimate and the other is not. To ignore this critical distinction and continue to state that "Proudhon supported property" without addressing it is to pretty much ignore or dismiss half of what he wrote. That all of this is directly supported by his text could not possibly be more clear, "There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. “Possession,” says Duranton, “is a matter of fact, not of right.” Toullier: “Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact.” The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors." (What is Property)

He believed that illegitimate property was based on dominion (i.e. entitlement), which must be backed by force certainly, but while this force can take the form of police in the employ of a state, it is the fact of its enforcement, not its form, that makes it what it is. Proudhon rejected entitlement, regardless of the source, and accepted possession based on occupancy, "From the distinction between possession and property arise two sorts of rights: the jus in re, the right in a thing, the right by which I may reclaim the property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; and the jus ad rem, the right to a thing, which gives me a claim to become a proprietor. Thus the right of the partners to a marriage over each other’s person is the jus in re; that of two who are betrothed is only the jus ad rem. In the first, possession and property are united; the second includes only naked property. With me who, as a laborer, have a right to the possession of the products of Nature and my own industry, — and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none of them, — it is by virtue of the jus ad rem that I demand admittance to the jus in re." (What is Property) Nothing in this limits the illegitimate forms of property to unused land, that is merely a spectre you are conjuring up with no evidence.

If we accept your thesis, that Proudhon made no real distinction between two kinds of property, then all of his statements become contradictions and you can no longer hold that he supported property, "instead of inferring from this that property should be shared by all, I demand, as a measure of general security, its entire abolition." I am trying to clarify his distinction so that we can see what he meant when rejected property and what he meant when he embraced it. But the critical distinction here is the difference between possession and entitlement, not state-backed titles to unused land and all other forms of property:

"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to exploit the labour of others, without an effort on his own part, property distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as 'possession,' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needs to live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty." "On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", The Raven

"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned . . . including such things as interest on loans and income from rent. This is contrasted with ownership rights in those goods either produced by the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for example his dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate rights of ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his latter work he calls this 'property,' the conceptual distinction remains the same." Classical Anarchism, pp. 85-86 19:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, the fact that Proudhon was against property beyond state entitlement couldn't be more clear, "property in produce, even if this is allowed, does not mean property in the means of production. . . [workers] are, if you like, proprietors of their products, but none proprietor of the means of production. The right to the produce is exclusively jus in re; the right to the means is common, jus ad rem." In other words, he supported property to that which was produced by labor and rejected property in that which was not, this whole "unused land" thing is a red herring.

All of my edits make this clear, the previous version of the article did not. Revkat 19:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Off the mark?

Now you've deleted an entire section explaining how Proudhon became more conservative later in life, you pulled my quote as being redundant despite the fact that it was there before you put it in twice, and in doing so you removed a very important part of it, "property, by creating guarantees for itself that both spread it more equally and establish it more firmly in society, itself becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on an even keel. Once property has been firmly established . . . the power of the State is increased to the maximum" which clearly demonstrates broadening support of property and of the state later in life. Maybe you aren't comfortable with having the reader know that by the time he dropped possession in favor of property he was also supporting the state? And your only comment for removing all of this information was that it was "off the mark?" Fine, happy to document this well known fact about Proudhon:

Many of these masters were not anarchists throughout their lives and their complete works include passages which have nothing to do with anarchism.

To take an example: in the second part of his career Proudhon's thinking took a conservative turn. His verbose and monumental De la Justice dans la Revolution et dans l'Eglise (1858) was mainly concerned with the problem of religion and its conclusion was far from libertarian.

Anarchism - From theory to Practice, Daniel Guerin

Now the quote itself was enough evidence of the changing face of his beliefs, and I've provided another selection from a history to demonstrate that yes, he did in fact change and this is relevant to the article. I've also provided my first source above for showing that Proudhon did not earlier define property exclusively as state granted title. Given all of this, I'm going to need at least some support of the claims you have been making before I dig up more. Revkat 09:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Everybody changes over time. What's your point? My point is that in all his writings he opposed the protection of unused land and supported individual ownership of the produce of labor (private property). RJII 16:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, maybe my point is that you shouldn't delete parts of the text which illustrate factual and relevant parts of is life? Of course, both of your claims above are true and nothing I have written has said otherwise. All I have said is that earlier in his life he objected to more than just the protection of unused land (he objected to any kind of property based on claims to dominion - entitlement) and his own direct quotes make this pretty undeniable, and that later in his life when he dropped his support of only possession in favor of a wider acceptance of property he had also taken a conservative turn and begun to support a lot of things that he had previously sought to denounce (like the state, for example). None of the evidence you have offered so far contradicts anything I am saying, and my changes to the text only clarify these issues for the reader. Revkat 19:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

From What is Property to Theory of Property

RJ I'm guessing your unsourced 'property is freedom' and 'property is revolutionary force etc.' quotes must be from a translation of Théorie de la Propriété. Is that so? Can you give more exact references?

Unfortunately I don't have access to an English translation of this book - only the french which you can get on the web here: http://www.uqac.uquebec.ca/zone30/Classiques_des_sciences_sociales/index.html.

But if your translation follows the french at all closely I think your quotes are very selective indeed. Eg.:

"Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists"

I suppose this is from chapter 6. But the sentences tagged together to make your quote are scattered over a few pages (84-86). And the bits in between don't sit very comfortably with your interpretation.

For example here's the bit from which I suppose the 'greatest revolutionary force' line comes:

Toutes ces considérations recueillies, nous pouvons conclure : la propriété est la plus grande force révolutionnaire qui existe et qui se puisse opposer au pouvoir. Or, la force par elle-même ne peut être dite bienfaisante ou malfaisante, abusive ou non abusive : elle est indifférente à l'usage auquel on l'emploie ; autant elle, se montre destructive, autant elle petit devenir conservatrice; si parfois elle éclate en effets subversifs au lieu de se répandre en résultats utiles, la faute en est à ceux qui la dirigent et qui sont aussi aveugles qu'elle.

My French isn't perfect but I can make out that he's saying more or less 'this force by itself is neither positive nor negative, abusive or nonabusive; it is indifferent to the use to which it is employed; conservative as much as destructive; if sometimes it bursts into subversive effects instead of useful results, the fault is with those who guide it and who use it blindly,' or something like that.

This makes sense if you read more, because it's very clear that Proudhon isn't here talking about property in your anarcho-capitalist sense. In fact the examples of property as a revolutionary force that he gives (on page 83-4) are for the most part examples of bourgeois property interests, monopoly capitalists, warring against the centralising state. He talks about the 18th brumaire - saying that it was the property interest of the bourgeoisie behind Napoleonist imperialism against the republic. This is hardly an association of anarcho-capitalist owners of the fruits of their labour. (And in fact in other places he says explicitly that only property in the roman law sense and not 'possession' can provide this force against the state.)

Thus I don't think you can read this text as a defence of property, in any sense of the term, against the state. It is more complicated than that. On a number of occasions he calls property 'absolutiste' 'abusive' and even 'odious'. (Eg see p84 - La seule chose que nous sachions nettement de la propriété, et par laquelle nous puissions la distinguer de la possession, c'est qu'elle est absolue et abusive ; eh bien ! c'est dans son absolutisme, c'est dans ses abus, pour ne pas dire pis, que nous devons en chercher la finalité.)

Also, it is clear that property and the state whilst being two 'poles' are not always in conflict, and often support each other when it is in their interst to do so.

Il est donc prouve que la propriété, par elle-même, ne tient à aucune forme de gouvernement ; qu'aucun lien dynastique ou juridique ne l'enchaîne; que toute sa politique se réduit à un mot, l'exploitation, sinon l'anarchie; qu'elle est pour le pouvoir le plus redoutable ennemi et le plus perfide allié; en un mot que, dans ses rapports avec l'État, elle n'est dirigée que par un seul principe, un seul sentiment, une seule idée , l'intérêt personnel, l'égoïsme. p84

'Property in itself doesn't belong to any particular form of government, and it is not bound by any dynastic or juridical link; all its policy reduces to one word, exploitation, if not anarchy (and I don't think he's using that in an anarchist sense here); it is for power the most redoubtable enemy and the most perfidious ally; in its alliances with the state it is guided by one sole principle, personal interest, egoism.'

It is a very complicated text, and I could do with studying it more, but my first impression is maybe here we see Proudhon moving away from anarchism to a kind of grudging liberalism - he sees property, even in the bourgeois monopoly capitalism sense, as a necessary evil against the power of the state. But certainly not anarcho-capitalism.

Bengalski 12:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's not anarcho-capitalism. Proudhon subscribed to the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalists don't. The former leaves no room for profit while the latter does. But, both support individual ownership of the produce of their labor. In ordinary terms that's private property --that which an individual owns as opposed to a collective pool (which is why the anarcho-communists condemned Proudhon). What essentially makes Proudhon incompatible with capitalism is his opposition to profit. Private property, while necessary for capitalism, is not sufficient for capitalism. Hence, the system called mutualism (economic theory). Here is a decent article on his position: [5] RJII 13:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I won't accuse you again of trying to make Proudhon an an-cap - although I think your view that it hinges on the labour theory of value is off the point. But can you address my questions?

Do you have references for your quotes in which Proudhon appears favourable to property (propriété, not possession)? Can you demonstrate that these are in fact advocating private property in your sense - individual ownership of the produce of their labour, given my points above? Bengalski 13:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm baffled that you don't see that Proudhon supports private ownership of the produce of labor. I don't know how anyone could conclude otherwise when reading him. I can't read french, so I don't know what the rest of Theory of Property says. RJII 19:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that Proudhon doesn't support private ownership of the produce of labour (well, that's another question anyway). I was saying that the quotes you were taking from Theory of Property weren't in defence of property in that sense at all. I wouldn't expect you to read French, but I do wish you would stop quoting without proper references third hand from books you haven't read. Though I suppose in a way I should thank you for prompting me to go and read Proudhon properly to track them down.Bengalski 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a question for you. You claim that Proudhon moved away from anarchism. When did Proudhon ever advocate the abolition of government? As far as I can tell, he was always a minarchist. RJII 19:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there are passages in Proudhon that read like minarchism. But there are just as many others if not more that don't. Whatever Larry Gambone says (I see that's where you've been taking your Proudhon quotes from, which is I guess why you never give decent references), there is certainly inconsistency - or at least, a greater degree of complexity than I think you are willing or able to accept, in Proudhon's work. But then who isn't inconsistent? As I said, it's not hard to find quotes in Proudhon that are against anarchism or that support property (in the full-blown sense). That doesn't mean that he was never an anarchist.

I think 'On the general idea of the revolution in the 19th century' has his fullest discussion of the state and of his version of an anarchist society. It's definitely worth reading, and is widely available in english (though unfortunately I don't think it's on the net).

In Section IV (On the principle of authority) you can find for example:

"We conclude without fear that the revolutionary formula should not be direct legislation, nor direct government, nor simplified government; it is no more government."

"Neither monarchy, nor aristocracy, nor even democracy, where this third term implies some or other government acting in the name of the people and calling itself the people. No authority, no government, even of the people: there is the revolution."

And there's plenty more in that vein.

'What Is Property', which is on the net, is not as clear but he does also call all forms of government illegitimate there.Bengalski 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

From Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1862), Théorie de la propriété 25-26 (of the online edition cited above):

« Dans mes premiers mémoires, attaquant de front l'ordre établi, je disais, par exemple : La propriété, c'est le vol ! Il s'agissait de protester, de mettre pour ainsi dire en relief le néant de nos institutions. Je n'avais point alors a m'occuper d'autre chose. Aussi, dans le mémoire où je démontrais, par A plus B, cette étourdissante proposition, avais-je soin de protester contre toute conclusion communiste.

« Dans le Système des Contradictions économiques, après avoir rappelé et confirmé ma première définition, j'en ajoute une toute contraire, mais fondée mière argumentation, ni être détruites par elle : La propriété, c'est la liberté!

La propriété, c'est le vol; la propriété, c'est la liberté : ces deux propositions sont également démontrées et subsistent l'une à côté de l'autre dans le Système des Contradictions... La propriété paraissait donc ici avec sa raison d'être et sa raison de non être. »

An English translation can be found in Stewart Edwards, ed. Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon. New York: Anchor (Doubleday), 1969. p. 37.

From at least the System of Economic Contradictions on, Proudhon organized his thought in terms of "antinomies," apparent contraditions which he expected to be productive of new syntheses. Even his early writings appear to assume a constant, endless struggle between elements of liberty and of authority, a position he makes explicit in the book on the federal principle. The answer to the question of whether or not Proudhon "became a liberal" late in life depends a lot on how you interpret this "antinomian" elements of Proudhon's "original anarchism." Libertatia 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation

Late in his life Proudhon became more conservative and reactionary, eventually embracing a kind of liberalism. He no longer advocated the abolition of government, and instead argued for increasing its powers while also strenghthening property in order to counter-balance it. "Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists" and "property, by creating guarantees for itself that both spread it more equally and establish it more firmly in society, itself becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on an even keel. Once property has been firmly established . . . the power of the State is increased to the maximum"(Selected Writings).

Aside from the fact that its is unsourced, it is also almost unreadable and contradictory. - FrancisTyers 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The quote is not unsourced. It's from Selected Writings. But, as far as I know it's incorrect when it says "he no longer advocated the abolition of government." I've never seen him call for the abolition of government, but rather for it's minimization. He called himself an anarchist, but was actually a minarchist. RJII 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you could remember back a couple of months, or look a few lines above on this page to our earlier discussion ...Bengalski 16:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That (meaning Selected Writings) isn't a sufficient citation. Interesting interpretation you have there. - FrancisTyers 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a sufficient citiation for what exactly? RJII 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For more information on Wikipedia policy with respect to citation I direct you to WP:CITE. - FrancisTyers 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying. You mean it's not the proper syntax for a citation or something? RJII 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See the section above where this has already been discussed ad infinitum - RJ is using an out of context jumble of sources from 'Theory of Property', which he's got third hand through an essay by Larry Gambone.Bengalski 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not from Gambone. That's from Theory of Property. I put it back in properly cited, minus the editorializing you attached to it before. RJII 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII is on the right track on this one, although the claim that Proudhon was "always a minarchist" is presentist, and just mirrors the anarchist communist claims that mutualists have never been real anarchists. I've cited the important passage from Theory of Property in the section above. It would be nice to track down the passage in the System of Economic Contraditions that Proudhon is referring to, but his account of the matter is clear: both definitions pertain. If we want to tackle the question of whether Proudhon "became a liberal," we would be better off looking at the serious secondary sources, from folks who have done the work in French. Libertatia 17:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The "third form of society" and Proudhon's antinomies

Several places in the entry, it says that Proudhon rejected both individual and collective ownership, or capitalism and communism. That's true, as far as it goes. But what Proudhon does very clearly in What Is Property is to move on from that rejection, in his dialectical manner, looking for a "third form of society" more to his taste. "This third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property, we will call liberty." (What Is Property, 1st Memoir, Ch. V).[6] He describes mutuality as "the synthesis of the notions of private property and collective ownership." (System of Economic Contraditions, I, pp. 410-411.) Proudhon's rejection leads him towards a synthesis, just as the apparent contradiction between his theories of property represents an antimony which still needs synthesizing. Proudhon flat out states that in presenting the "property is liberty" theory in Economic Contraditions he is not changing his mind about the earlier "property is theft" definition. We wouldn't try to write about Hegel or Marx without taking the dialectical character of their thought into account. We can't in the case of Proudhon either. Libertatia 00:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Add what you think needs to be added :) Infinity0 ^talk 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will. I'm doing my "homework" right now, so hopefully we won't have to fight about it much. There are some interesting later quotes where Proudhon doesn't even rely on "synthesis," but emphasizes "balance" between approaches that can't (apparently) be fully reconciled. Greene takes a similar approach in the 1849-1850 works. Libertatia 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One heck of an ellipsis

The "quote" from Theory of Property seems to cover material from around p. 16 in the original, through at least p. 144, and the page number from Selected Writings doesn't seem to correspond to any of the sections. Unsurprisingly, what appears in the entry doesn't really do justice the 128+ pages of argument. Fair warning: I'm about to tackle a rewrite. Libertatia 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

anti-semitism

If Proudhon was such an anti-semite (which I do not doubt), shouldn't it be discussed in the main part of the article, and not relegated to quotations in a "criticism" section? I feel as though I have learned nothing about Proudhon's anti-semitism from this article save a mere assertion of it. john k 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

libertarian socialism

According to the Wikipedia entry, libertarian socialism aims at "the abolition of private property, thereby restoring direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes." This is, obviously, what Proudhon advocated. In "What is Property?" he explicitly demanded the abolition of private property and this and subsequent works argued for workers to own and control the means of production, i.e. "direct control." Mutualism is even mentioned in the Wikipedia entry as socialist! And to cut and paste from the mutualism entry:

K. Steven Vincent notes in his in-depth analysis of this aspect of Proudhon's ideas that "Proudhon consistently advanced a program of industrial democracy which would return control and direction of the economy to the workers." For Proudhon, "strong workers' associations . . . would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day basis." (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984, p. 230 and p. 156)

So please stop changing the obvious fact that Proudhon was, and is still considered to be, a libertarian socialist. User: BlackFlag 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But [[socialism] includes "collective ownership of the means of production." (See the article.) Proudhon was definitely against that. The libertarian socialism article uses weasel phrasing to obscure the collective ownership aspect. It says workers' "control" but being socialism really means a form of collective ownership - not private control ("possession") like Proudhon wanted. Hogeye 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So much for internal consistency! Proudhon is considered a libertarian socialist in most circles, particularly anarchist ones, as well as other entries in Wikipedia. And Proudhon wanted collective ownership by workers associations. As he put it, the means were to be held in common -- land and "capital" He was a libertarian socialist -- that you do not like it is your problem, to be honest. BlackFlag, 16:04, 6 November 2006

Original research?

Hey, Chuck0, how is designating Proudhon a mutualist, following his own terminology, "original research"? (See, for example, De la capacité politique des classes ouvrières, for an extended, programmatic treatment of mutualisme and mutualité.) Libertatia 15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proudhon is known for being inspirator of mutualism and "autogestion" (workers' self-management), at least since the end of the 19th century. There is tons of ressources available which will back this up. Tazmaniacs 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

copyright?

Large pieces of the article appear to have been lifted from this site. The bottom of that page says it's copyrighted, but i'm not sure if this legal or not. A.w.hogan 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's copied word by word, no. If it's only the information in the article that has been used, no, it's not illegal, but it is more honest and fair to indicate the source in the bottom of the article. If it is copied word by word, than copy-editing it and choosing the most important information would be the best way to deal with it. Tazmaniacs

2nd Republic

The article endorses without any criticisms or distance Proudhon's point of view on the 1848 Revolution and the Second Republic. According to it, he criticized the National Workshops for being charity, thus demonstrating a radical stance, and then criticized the June Days Uprising for using violence! What coherence has this got? Proudhon obviously missed an occasion there. I added some contextual information about the Revolution, but there is still more precisions & background to be given. What month, for example, did Proudhon published his work during this Revolution? What did he thought about the Radical Republicans and Socialists? He seems to consider them both too moderate and too radical... Tazmaniacs 21:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proudhon's stance was, notoriously, all his own. The major work from 1848 still need to be translated into English, but much of it is collected in Idées révolutionnaires. Google Books also has one volume of the Mélanges, including journalism from 1849-50, Résumé de la question sociale: banque d'échange, and Les confessions d'un révolutionnaire. His famous criticism was that the February Revolution was "without an idea," and he did consider parts of the revolution too moderate or too radical. Recall, too, that in 1846 he had kicked off his "dialectical" phase with the System of Economic Contradictions, and he was prone to viewing nearly all his key concepts as being worked out in terms of irreducible contradictions. Libertatia 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

socialist tradition

I removed this bit about the socialist tradition. I thought there something about Proudhon and socialism in the criticism section, but apparently not. Anyways, the material about Proudhon is too complex to just put a stamp in the intro of the article, especially since socialism in Proudhon's time meant something differently than what is now understood. Intangible2.0 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, Proudhon said that Communism is inequality. Communism is oppression and slavery. Intangible2.0 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Intangible! A long time... What do you mean that Proudhon does not belong to the Socialist tradition? Does anarchism does not belong to the Socialist tradition? I recall that the IWA was founded in 1864, and anarcho-syndicalism, one of the leading tradition of anarchism, dates from the IWA, doesn't it? I know US people think "Socialism = Communism", but I also guess that you disagree with that. Socialism is older than Communism - notwithstanding your anti-communism which is quite irrelevant to the subject at discussion. Tazmaniacs 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proudhon antagonism against French (revolutionary) socialists and communists seem to misplace him in the socialist tradition. This article might shed some light: [7]. From Salwyn Schapiro, referenced in the criticism section, I also do not get the idea that Proudhon belonged to a certain tradition. Intangible2.0 23:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As Arthur Bestor notes in his "Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary," "socialism" came to cover a rather broad range in the 1840s and 1850s. Proudhon's writings from the years following the February Revolution are certainly full of passages in which he associates himself with socialism, but distances himself from any particular "system." Libertatia 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proudhon is clearly a member of the socialist tradition, if you take that to mean "workers' movement". And I do, personally. Fights between communists, anarchists (i.e. 1880s let's say), social democrats (1920s let's say) - (now some claim that there is some "democratic socialism", and that it's not the same as "social-democrats" -- go wonder!, 1990s??? or just not enough divisions?) are just that, fights inside the socialist tradition. Now, of course, you've got the "revolutionary right", but that's another thing alltogether - if you want to argue that the "revolutionary right" is part of the "socialist tradition" (sic), this is the wrong page to do so. Socialism does not necessarily means belonging to a "system" - nobody claims Proudhon belonged to the "socialist system", it's a tradition, and tradition may be interpreted (see "revolutionary right"). They change also: nationalism was in France a left-wing, Republican and Socialist trait - until the Dreyfus Affair (and here comes the "revolutionary right", again - always at the corner, isn't it?) Tazmaniacs

Haha. No, the only concern I have is that the socialist traditions in general have to do with some kind of collectivization of the production process (or "democratization" if you will), so putting this in the intro sentence puts a "wrong stamp" on the article. It would be better to move this issue a lil bit down, with some text on how Proudhon differed from the French Utopians (like Fourier) and the Marxists. Intangible2.0 06:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Serial dialectic?

That´s something i´ve already seem quite many times being discussed in portuguese but not that much in english. Had Proudhon developed a "serial dialectic"? And what the * is that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.83.166.254 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The phrase "serial dialectic" seems to relate to Proudhon's early Creation of Order in Humanity, which borrowed the notion of "series" from Fourier and was much closer to that brand of associationism than the form of dialectic developed in The System of Economic Contraditions. Libertatia 17:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section is full of crap

To begin with, it states that the radical right were the first to borrow from Proudhon. Which of course ignores the entire anarchist tradition which borrowed from Proudhon and often translated his works. Both Bakunin and Greene credit Proudhon. Even Tolstoy names one of his novels after one of Proudhon's essays...

In addition it claims that Sorel was a syndicalist, which is wrong, and disputed.

Having so much emphasis on the far right and so little on the left is also undue weight. Jacob Haller 16:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Proudhon was having an impact in New England radical circles by 1848, and this will be easy to document. We could also include mention of Bellegarrigue and the earlier Proudhonian "circle" around his newspapers. The influence on fascism is a footnote. I'll try to find a few minutes to work on the early legacy. Libertatia 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely Proudhon had other, earlier influences. But the Cercle Proudhon was one of the most famous "think tank" (sic) of the times, and they really put Proudhon's name back in business — at least in France. Maybe a distinction between influence in France & influence abroad could be made? But disputing the Cercle Proudhon's influence by adding a "dubious" tag, as if it had not been one of the main carrier of Proudhon's thoughts in France, is clearly disputing historical reality. Concerning your claim about Sorel, surely we are not thinking the same when you say that he was not a "syndicalist". Maybe "trade-unionist" would be better? In any cases, he is mostly known as an anarcho-syndicalist... About the undue weight, please add info or an "unbalanced tag" Tazmaniacs 01:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Woodcock says, "Sorel, whose ideas were most fully developed in his Reflections on Violence, had no direct connection with the syndicalist movement, and he was repudiated..." That seems to be representative of those who say he was a theorist who attached himself to the actual trade-unionists. As for the rest, Proudhonists made up an important French faction in the IWA, and Proudhon's thought strongly influenced debate in French and Belgian socialist circles long before the "Cercle." As we get the other details in, the weight issue ought to equalize. Libertatia 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Misogyny

Something should be mentioned about the fact that he was pretty much a flaming misogynist, whose answer to incipient feminism was more or less that women should take their shrill voices and weak minds out of politics, and not bother their pretty little heads about matters that were inherently beyond them (I loosely paraphrase, of course). See Juliette Adam, etc.... AnonMoos 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Proudhon's actual position on the family and women's roles could easily be added. He was certainly conservative in that regard. He was also undoubtedly 'not a misogynist. Libertatia 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The existence of feminists seemed to irritate him into tirades during which he produced statements such as "the only two legitimate roles for women are as a prostitute or as a housewife" (again paraphrasing)... AnonMoos 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in actually contributing sourced material on Proudhon's attitudes towards women, go ahead. There is a lot to cover, and it is not all of one piece. These "paraphrases," however, don't cut it. Libertatia 16:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The majority of French males of the period were probably "conservative" in their attitudes towards women's roles, but somehow more than one feminist wrote books or essays to specifically refute Proudhon's ideas (rather than those of any of the millions of others)... AnonMoos 19:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Proudhon was, after all, something of a big deal in his day, and thus a logical target. The most extensive of the critiques, d'Hericourt's A Woman's Philosophy of Woman was, in fact, pretty broadly critical, targeting Michelet, Proudhon, Comte, Girardin, Legouve, "and other modern innovators." The point is to get the criticism of Proudhon's actual anti-feminism correct, rather than resorting to obviously uninformed "paraphrases" and terms like "misogynist" which are simply inaccurate. The largely untranslated Amour et Mariage and La Pornocratie, or solid commentary on them (perhaps starting with d'Hericourt's very interesting contemporary response), would be the places to start. Libertatia 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Proudhon and anarchist individualism

I´ve replaced

"After Bakunin's death, his libertarian socialism diverged into anarchist communism and collectivist anarchism, with notable proponents such as Peter Kropotkin and Joseph Déjacque."

For

"After Bakunin's death, his libertarian socialism diverged into anarchist communism, collectivist anarchism and anarchist individualism, with notable proponents such as Peter Kropotkin, Joseph Déjacque and Benjamin Tucker."

Since the individualists always consider Proudhon as a key-thinker, specially since Tucker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.225.219 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this anonymous user's changes, and then decided to remove the sentence in its entirety and bring it here for discussion. This sentence is unclear, at least, it seems so to me. Since the sentence begins with mention of Bakunin, is "his libertarian socialism" a reference to Bakunin`s libertarian socialism? If so, why, since this is an article about Proudhon? If the reference is to Proudhon`s libertarian socialism, what is the relevance of Bakunin's death? If we are talking about Proudhon, then the anarchist individualism addition is correct, since he (Proudhon) was an important ifluence on Tucker, et al. This needs to be rewritten or stricken. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Marx's Critique

The article seems to imply that Marx's main critique of Proudhon had to deal with the latter's anarchism, but this is not the case. Marx did take issue with this, but his critique was much more concerned with a.) what he saw as Proudhon's misunderstanding of the relationship between labor, value, and price; and b.) the fact that Proudhon's attack on bourgeois property was framed in terms of bourgeois ethics, rather than transcending these ethics altogether.

It's also worth noting that Marx always maintained a certain respect for Proudhon. For example, in his obituary of Proudhon (which was written almost two decades after The Poverty of Philosophy), he calls What Is Property? "epoch-making".

71.252.14.128 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Feminism

How come there's still nothing on the article page about Prodhon's notoriously vocal and vehement opposition to feminism in any and every form?? AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following from the lead: "Proudhon's attitude towards women was misogynistic, even for the period, based as it was in Aristotle's "spermatic economy." <ref>P.-J. Proudhon, ''De la Justice dans la Revolution et dan l'Eglise'' (1858), in ''Oeuvres completes de P.-J. Proudhon'', new ed., ed. C. Bougle and h. Moysset, XII (Paris 1935).</ref>" It is insufficiently sourced as is, uses language which is probably not supported by the sources, and does not belong in the lead section, but the contention about the "spermatic economy" is sourceable, and would, as far as I'm concerned, be a welcome addition to the criticisms section. "Misogyny" is probably not the word to use, as there is no evidence that Proudhon hated women, however many stupid things he believed about them. I would think pointing out his sexism and anti-feminism would cover the ground. Libertatia (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave up on the word misogynist quite a while back (if that word ended up calling attention to itself more than to Proudhon's views, then it would not be helpful in the article, and in any case, we can leave it up to the readers of the article to make up their own minds on the subject). However, from what I've read, it would seem to be reasonable to call him a "notoriously vocal and vehement opponent of feminism in any and every form" -- and there's still nothing about it in the article. AnonMoos (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

war and peace

link takes you to tolstoy's war and peace; I'd fix it myself but have no idea how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.147.238 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Schapiro was wrong

"His hysterical praise of war, like his ardent championship of the dictatorship of Louis Napoleon . . . was an integral part of his social philosophy"

Why is this even quoted? It is not true. War and Peace, for example, ends with the words “Humanity alone is large, it is infallible. However, I believe I have the capacity to say on its behalf: Humanity does not want any more war.” For Proudhon, modern war “can never be anything other than war fought in the name of exploitation and property” and once “a just economic system has been established between both nations and individuals, war has no further function on earth.” This task was not aided by war: “What we must do now is organise economic forces. What use would war and its bloody tribunal be in helping to solve this new problem?”

As for the rest of the quote, suffice to say that it is a distortion of Proudhon's ideas. I know Marxists like to quote from it, but any serious scholar sees that Schapiro's article is nonsense. I would recommend dumping the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.107.30 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I just undid the last version changed by User:BlackFlag who removed the whole paragraph citing Schapiro's criticism of Proudhon. I understand that Schapiro's article on Proudhon is controversial, and I even agree that his argumentation suffers from several weaknesses (including questionable handling of citations, a biased text selection, reading Proudhon out of context etc.). Also, his criticisms are not weighed against other research. However, this does not mean that his allegations have no significance at all. It doesn't even imply that he must be wrong.
  Finally, Schapiro is an academic scholar with some reputation, and his article has been cited for decades, which to us means it is relevant. As we do no primary research at Wikipedia, all we can do is defend Proudhon against Schapiro with the help of other scholars with some reputation. This would mean contrasting the issues brought up by Proudhon's critics one by one with contrary expertise. Certainly, some allegations will remain uncontested, which would mean it was impossible to whitewash Proudhon.
  Sweeping the criticism under the table, however, doesn't help at all, as the Schapiro citation would be reintroduced within weeks by other authors. If we want the article to be balanced, we need to do the hard work digging into the arguments and citations.
  Regards, PanchoS (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"this does not mean that his allegations have no significance at all"? Really, so turning a book which explicitly calls for the end of war into a glorification of it has "significance"? It is not a case of whitewashing Proudhon, it is a case of not repeating dubious (if not false) assertions. As it stands, the huge block of text by Schapiro is excessive -- particularly as it remains uncontested. Few serious scholar's who have read Proudhon take his rant seriously. If It had time, I would work on including quotes by Proudhon to refute Schapiro's claims but unfortunately I do not. But then we would have much text showing that Schapiro is not a reliable source. User:BlackFlag 09:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This webpage has material on it relevant for showing that Schapiro's account is false: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/anarchism-and-the-right

New Proudhon Reader

I've added a link (http://www.property-is-theft.org) for the forthcoming Proudhon Anthology from AK Press. The linked webpage has on-line articles by Proudhon. User:BlackFlag 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proudhon on Social and Private ownership

It should really be stressed that Proudhon did not favour individual ownership and oppose social ownership. Quite the reverse, as he repeatedly argued that the means of production and the land would be under social ownership. A few quotes are required...

What is Property? [1840]:

“land is indispensable to our existence, consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible of appropriation”

“all capital, whether material or mental, being the result of collective labour, is, in consequence, collective property”

Letter to M. Blanqui [1841]:

“For this value or wealth, produced by the activity of all, is by the very fact of its creation collective wealth, the use of which, like that of the land, may be divided, but which as property remains undivided... In short, property in capital is indivisible, and consequently inalienable, not necessarily when the capital is uncreated, but when it is common or collective.“

“this non-appropriation of the instruments of production... I, in accordance with all precedent, call... a destruction of property. In fact, without the appropriation of instruments, property is nothing.“

Election Manifesto [1848]:

“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality... We are socialists... under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership“

Letter to Leroux [1849]:

“You have me saying, and I really do not know where you could have found this, that ownership of the instruments of labour must forever stay vested in the individual and remain unorganised. These words are set in italics, as if you had lifted them from somewhere in my books... But it does not follow at all... that I want to see individual ownership and non-organisation of the instruments of labour endure for all eternity. I have never penned nor uttered any such thing: and have argued the opposite a hundred times over... I deny all kinds of proprietary domain. I deny it, precisely because I believe in an order wherein the instruments of labour will cease to be appropriated and instead become shared; where the whole earth will be depersonalised“

The last quote is, of course, the most significant as he explicitly rejects individual ownership and states he has "argued the opposite a hundred times over". I've corrected some text on the article to reflect these quotes. Hopefully they will help ensure that Proudhon's ideas are correctly reflected in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Article quality needs improving

This subject is so important. There's a lot about the federalism of the United States that can be linked directly to the influence of Proudhon and others. All that government by the people for the people and state vs national law shows the influence of political thinkers who proposed a devolved federation. I think the progressive nature of early American politics is a result of the pioneers willingness to try some of the basic tenets of European libertarian philosophy. I know Thomas Paine was a big influence. No country was better suited to attempt these new ideas of devolved federalism. I think this article could do with a rewrite. Proudhon is devalued slightly. If Russia has Marx then who are the people who influenced America? Proudhon is as good a candidate as any.

Very easy to frame Proudhon and other European libertarian political theorists as utopian idealists whose ideas were not practical. I think that is wrong - if anything American federalism is in part the product of devolved power as investigated by Proudhon and others. It also explains why some of the national socialists found the idea of federalism so appealing. The idea of federalism and the chance to share power is bound to appeal to many political groups - especially those who feel disenfranchised politically. Boston Tea Party comes to mind.

Sluffs (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking the issue from outside the US i will think what fueled a lot of the "american experience" was genocide of the indian populations, slavery from africa and protestant christian fundamentalism. All thing very non-proudhon. As such in the US Proudhon has the influence he had. Mainly within radical progressive sectors and labour leaders such as US individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker or Dyer Lum and Joseph Labadie. But also i was thinking that this article needs more information on the important influence that Proudhon had in French socialism including the Paris Commune and how clearly is surpassed the influence of Marx in France atleast until the beginning of the XX century.--Eduen (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I removed the quote from the Carnets because it essentially duplicates the material in the paragraph that remains. It's important to note Proudhon's antisemitic remarks, but including virtually all of the two offending footnotes, when so little else from Proudhon's writings is represented seems a bit out of balance. Libertatia (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above and would also suggest that "art historian Linda Nochlin points out" could favorably be replaced with "...Nochlin claims" insofar as she then offers an extreme characterisation of Proudhon's "anti-feminism" without there being any way for the reader to confirm it. Separately, there is a lot of critical animus in this article with relatively little in the subject's defense. ConradArchguy (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220160141/https://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)