Property is Theft!

Tags:
From Anarcho's blog

This year marks the 170th anniversary of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's classic work "What is Property?" Within its pages two short expressions, a mere seven words, transformed socialist politics forever. One, only four words long, put a name to a tendency within the working class movement: “I am an Anarchist.” The other, only three words long, presented a critique and a protest against inequality which still rings: “Property is Theft!”

To mark this event, AK Press is publishing "Property is Theft!", the first comprehensive anthology of Proudhon's work. Find out more about the ideas of the leading French socialist of his time, the man Bakunin called "the master of us all" and his own ideas as "Proudhonism widely developed and pushed right to these, its final consequences."

The Proudhon Anthology should be out in November this year. It contains extracts from all of Proudhon's key works already available in English, including articles never before included in book format. In addition, substantial new material has been translated specifically for this anthology including articles from the 1848 Revolution, letters and chapters from important works like Confessions of a Revolutionary, The Political Capacity of the Working Classes and Solution of the Social Problem.

Material will be placed on line as from now at:

www.property-is-theft.org

More detailed contents can be found here:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/proudhon-reader-contents

There is a blog related to the book, which will announce new updates to the website and comment on Proudhon related news and developments:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/blogs/pjproudhon

A selection of Proudhon's more memorable quotes can found on it:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/proudhon-quotes

And the first two extracts are now on-line, with more to come as the year progresses:

Letter to Pierre Leroux

The Malthusians

Compiled, edited and introduced by Iain McKay, the author of An Anarchist FAQ and an editor of the UK's leading anarchist magazine Black Flag, the anthology will be essential reading for all those seeking to know about Proudhon and how his ideas influenced the evolution of anarchism.

“Iain McKay has done a superb job collecting Proudhon's most important, provocative and influential writings in one volume, many of which have not previously appeared in English. This collection will become an indispensable source book for anyone interested in Proudhon’s ideas and the origins of the socialist and anarchist movements in 19th century Europe.” (Robert Graham, editor of Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas)

“Publisher, political prisoner, political economist, and (briefly) parliamentarian, Proudhon was a pillar of nineteenth century socialism. His insights into economic and political issues led the young Karl Marx to call him ‘the most consistent and wisest of socialist writers.’ His libertarian vision of an egalitarian society based on self-management and federalism deeply influenced Mikhail Bakunin, founder of anarchism, who called him ‘the master of us all.’ Today, Proudhon's strategy for change – the creation of an alternative economy, created from below, through co-operatives – influences movements across the world. Yet his enduring influence and importance has been shrouded by caricature and his works remain difficult to obtain. This remarkable collection thus makes a vital contribution to the task of left and labour renewal in the post-Soviet world. Iain McKay has provided, at last, the definitive English-language collection of the master's masterworks, framed by a powerful introduction and insightful notes.” (Lucien van der Walt, co-author of Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, University of the Witwatersrand)

I thought Proudhon's essay

I thought Proudhon's essay defining property was correct,and coming from a basically privileged bourgoisie leftist,very honest,but it wasnt from his heart,it was motivated by a tactical political strategy for popularity,thus his future move into mainstream politics.

If Barack Obama stood behind

If Barack Obama stood behind a podium tomorrow and said, "Property is theft," it wouldn't be any less true.

Thats true about Obama, but

Thats true about Obama, but the point I was getting at was that politicians basically have a cruel rationale that voids their capacity to have a heart or a compassionate feeling to follow the good cause,because their own desire is for status and power,so they project a hierarchical and compromised truth,i.e. a lie.

yes it would. somehow, i

yes it would. somehow, i think it would.

Proudhon also wrote that he

Proudhon also wrote that he wished to see the Jews of Europe exterminated, a vision that was nearly realized a few decades later by the Nazis.

It's important to take into

It's important to take into context the antisemitism of the time. I wouldn't defend antisemitism or Nazism in a million years, but Proudhon was certainly in good company, including Marx and Bakunin.

Marx was actually Jewish,

Marx was actually Jewish, his father having converted to Christianity to keep his job. The quotes of him saying things about "money is the God of the Jews" has been proven to have been sarcastic and meant as a joke. He called himself "The Moor" yet was neither African nor Muslim. I believe Bakunin's antisemitism was real, although not nearly so bad as Proudhon's. He never called for the extermination of an entire ethnic group (though he did, of course call them "the enemy of humanity" or something along those lines).

Anyway, I think we need to move beyond their biases and take what's good and genuine from their ideas and add our own observations and ideas, because the world has changed quite radically since the 1840s.

...although, of the radical thinkers of the 1800s, Kropotkin stands out in that he never seemed to have a bad feeling towards anyone unless they were themselves direct oppressors of people. At least to me, Kropotkin's ideas are the most relevant today because bread is still a commodity.

IDK, Marx seemed pretty

IDK, Marx seemed pretty serious when talking about the Jews worshiping money in "On the Jewish Question."

Marx is arguing against

Marx is arguing against religion and what we would call identity politics in the "On the jewish question", not about race.

I wonder what future

I wonder what future anarchists will think when they read what most modern anarchists have to say about christians. Maybe nothing, but you never know,if somebody wiped out 6 million christians things could appear quite different.

In the future anarchists

In the future anarchists will not call themselves anarchists.I'm so weary of this obsession with religious/political identity based on cultural/racial idiosynchrosies.I would rather hear something about a subjectivity destroying political/religious system like Hinduism,its classification of a person on mystical grounds and their subsequent exploitation.Hitler having a discourse with the privileged Gandhi,trying to negotiate through some remote mystical affinity to the ancient Aryan races of Indo-European decent,some sort of alliance,trying to compare the untouchables of Hinduism with the Jewish around the would.How sad.

this is a dumb

this is a dumb comment.
Christianity is hegemonic now. Christianity was hegemonic then as well. There were 15 million jews in the world before the Nazis wiped out 2/5 of them. There are 2.1 billion Christians. If 6 million christians were wiped out, that;s .2%, not almost half.

Jews were (and non-Israeli Jews are) a marginal diasporic stateless nation, like the Roma, or the Kurds. They were a "problem" for socialists and nationalists because they were a non-assimilating, internally focused ethnic group that have allegiances to a religion and their own autonomy, not to the larger nation-state project.

What a stupid reason to go

What a stupid reason to go after him. Everyone hated Jews until the Holocaust, it was a widespread bourgeois norm. It's like saying the Enlightenment values aren't > mercantilism because most of the Enlightenment types were incredibly racist. Proudhon wasn't responsible for Nazism, this is guilt by association (albeit a bad association)

Not to minimize Proudhon's

Not to minimize Proudhon's hatred of Jews (and he was neither the only anarchist or socialist to harbor such sentiments...), but the full context of his solution to the Jewish Question was to expel as many as possible from France, assimilate (de-Judaize) as many of the remainder as possible, and then exterminate those who refused to leave or assimilate.

He also thought that women were naturally stupid and only good for breeding and cooking.

The point of airing these personal failings of Proudhon? Bakunin hated Jews too, Kropotkin favored the Allies in WWI, Rocker the same in WWII, and I'm sure we can dig up all sorts of major or minor scandals in just about any anarchist throughout anarchist history. It proves that anarchists are humans with the same kind of shortcomings that all humans have. If anything, it proves that anarchists are right that nobody is both wise and ethical enough to rule others.
=Mister Grumpy

The problem with Proudhon is

The problem with Proudhon is that his anti-semitism was essential, rather than incidental, to his worldview. His anti-semitism was intimately connected to his (mis)understanding of economics and politics. It was at the core of his worldview.

wait, we're all not

wait, we're all not anti-joo?
i thought we were against bankers!

Bankers != Jews. Actually,

Bankers != Jews.

Actually, the reason that so many Jews are in finance is somewhat ironic: in the middle ages, Jews weren't allowed to hold most jobs (people were afraid they'd poison food, wells, etc) so one job they were always allowed to have was money lending. Hence why so many of the first banks that emerged were run by or with Jews at the top. So the anti-Semites who are angry because Jews run "so much" of the economic world can actually thank anti-Semites in medieval Europe for that.

yeah i was just

yeah i was just joking.

interesting history there. maybe anarchists' ostracizing today will somehow lead to the flourishing of anarchism in the future, then. one can hope.

This is slightly off. Jews'

This is slightly off. Jews' didn't "own" banks or moneylending operations, they worked for Lords and Barons etc. This made it so jews were the target of several uprisings against the feudal system, since they were the ones peasants dealt with directly in terms of financial obligations.

Yeah i just realized i was a

Yeah i just realized i was a bit wrong in my post there. But the fact remains that antisemitism is largely responsible for the stereotype of Jews being in control of financial institutions.

Actually, i remember a few years back i found a website that listed the richest people in the world. The site was some neo-nazi group. This was back in the late 1990s, and Bill Gates was still the richest man in the world. Next to his name (and almost all of the names on that list) were the words "secretly Jewish". Kind of sad when they have to make up such obvious fabrications to justify their hatred of everything and everyone that isn't...well, themselves.

the reason jews did

the reason jews did finance/banking/moneylending was because usury was illegal in medieval europe

That's way too general,for a

That's way too general,for a start Judeaism also prohibited usury by religious edict,and in medieval europe,because of the orthodox devoutness to their faith that endowed them also with a strict and honest moral code,they were trusted more than the christian.It was legal to lend money interest free,for a fee,this was not technically usury,because there was no actual interest rate.They held peoples money and property interest free and used it amongst their own faithful as capital,and the persons who had given them the money or other valuables or deeds could be 100% sure that their property was safe and they could withdraw it untouched.Because the jealous christian kings,barons and princes began to tax them for providing this service,they began to loan money to christians at interest equivalent to the tax to recover the cost of these royal papist taxes,but amongst their faithful own they continued giving interest free loans,because interest is usury,and forbidden by their religious moral laws.

"The problem with Proudhon

"The problem with Proudhon is that his anti-semitism was essential, rather than incidental, to his worldview. His anti-semitism was intimately connected to his (mis)understanding of economics and politics. It was at the core of his worldview."

This.

Proudhon's worldview contains some of the most crass fetishization in anarchist history. Look at his ideas regarding money. The same could be said of his attitude towards Jews. I can't remember right now who said it, but I read a pretty convincing essay that argued that Proudhon is the father of modern anti-semitism (aka the transfer from strictly blood libel to jew-as-capital).

I believe the Nazis even

I believe the Nazis even took quite a bit from Proudhon's work.

I'm surprised there's not more people on here trying to defend him. Apparently he's not even popular amongst anarchists (aside from the "National Anarchists" who believe that "National Socialism" has failed, so they should move on to National Anarchism, whatever that means)

I don't see how his economic

I don't see how his economic ideas were fundamentally reliant on anti-Semitic. Would that mean being anti-government is intrinsically anti-Semitic?

Rocker favored the allies

Rocker favored the allies against Hitler in WW2? The horror!!

And tell Audrey that, too!

Yes the horror. Hitler does

Yes the horror. Hitler does not trump anarchist/anti-state revolutionary activity. Does "Hitler" justify the incendiary bombing of Dresden? The deliberate targeting of civilians in Hamburg, Berlin, and other areas? What about the Japanese? Do you think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable? Ravachol or Emile Henry are looked at as villains by most pacifist anarchists, but many of them aren't unhappy with the destruction meted out by nation-states...

In case you didn't know it, WWII was a slaughter based on inter-imperialist rivalry just like WWI was, just like every war in the modern period was until the end of the cold war. Wars have nothing to do with revolutionary self-activity.
=Mister Grumpy

Indeed. There's a difference

Indeed.

There's a difference between being anti-Nazi and supporting the "Allies". The main difference being not supporting the Allies. The French Resistance, for instance, was anti-Nazi but didn't support the installation of a tyrant after the war, though that's what happened.

Since identity, racism,

Since identity, racism, sexism remain potent issues today, I would like to see anyone calling themselves an anarchist welcoming rigorous discussion regarding theirs and others - especially of those deemed important historically - personal perceptions of any people-as-a-group. Not as disparagement (necessarily) but to grapple with the contradictions. It seems very relevant and might have potential in shifting the current inane identity politicking to a deeper understanding of cultural influences as well as systemic strategy.

-ow

Where did he write this? I

Where did he write this? I haven't read much of his work but I'd be interested in this.

His diaries mostly. Not sure

His diaries mostly. Not sure if they've ever been published in their entirety.

One could make the argument

One could make the argument that Proudhon-et-al's anti-semitism stems from a personification of Jews as the heads of capital, a la "the rich" or "the bourgeoise" today. In this way, Jew is synonymous with banker, or rich people. These people were products of the society they lived in. Not defending them, but still.

One could also make the

One could also make the argument that many in Europe and North America at the time were NOT racist, and as such there is absolutely no excuse for those who were. Proudhon was more racist than many/most of his contemporaries, and certainly had more extreme views than the majority of Europeans at the time. Most Europeans would have been fine with just having a "Jewish country" or something along those lines. Proudhon advocated the annihilation of the entire Jewish population of France. First of all, that sounds a whole lot like the Nazis. Secondly, since when do anarchists care about national borders? This sounds like reaction, not progress.

We are anarchists NOT

We are anarchists NOT Proudhonians, but if anti-semitism is that unacceptable to you then you should go after Marxism. See ' Marx and Friends'.

Proudhon was guilty of

Proudhon was guilty of praising "productive capital" (ie wealth derived directly from labor), while denouncing "unproductive capital" (ie interest from investments, etc) - but what's important is that he connected the later specifically to "the jews".

it's this connecting of "finance capital" and "jews" that became part of the basis of nazi antisemitism. moishe postone's essay "anti-semitism and national socialism" develops this

I don't see anything here,

I don't see anything here, or in any anarchist writing, which would convince me to call myself an anarchist. I simply hold that all forms of government are inherently evil. I suppose that Libertarians are just Republicans that smoke pot, and that Anarchists are just Democrats who have body piercings. I see that primitive man paid neither taxes or rent. Such societies were stable if nothing else, having persisted for thousands of years. What anarchist or libertarian writers where they studying at their group meetings?

Neither Marx nor Rand is my stance. Capitalism and Socialism are the same thing, they are two variants of the Babylonian world system. Government is inherently evil. It seems to me that any writer has both personal flaws which detracts from my idolizing them, as well as political compromises which makes me think that they might have just as well been writing fiction. I know that government is inherently evil because of myeslf, not because of any writer of philosopher.

I suppose that people still think about liberty and anarchy inspite of everything that has ever been written about the subject, both on the left, and on the right.

I refuse to have socio-economic fetishes such as Capitalism and Socialism. Such ideas just allow people who want to control me to have a fulcrum with which to leverage me. I do not consent to be governed, I can only be governed through force. I won't make it any easier for you by holding any of your views. Caring about Socialism is for college professors and college students who have a vested interest in managing us.

anarchism = libertarian

anarchism = libertarian socialism

look it up sparky.

You people write the

You people write the funniest things. Coming to this board in the mornings, with my cup of coffee, is much better then reading the comics in the newspaper.

Coffee and morning newspaper

Coffee and morning newspaper = bourgeoise mentality

thank you for feeding the

thank you for feeding the troll. No, really. Thanks.

Bakunin at least brings

Bakunin at least brings something to the table. We have to weigh his occasional anti-Semitism against his other, more exciting accomplishments. Proudhon, on the other hand, is just dead weight. He may or may not have given us the word "anarchism," but he also gave us mutualism, federalism, and other trash. His followers tend to be the worst sectarians, and the biggest cranks.

The anarchist scene has evolved at least a little bit since the bad old days of the 1980s and early 90s, when we had to take seriously all these stupid debates with every kind of wingnut, from anarcho-capitalists to advocates of "people's banks" (a direct legacy of Proudhon). And one of the bigger steps it has taken is dropping Proudhon, and the idea that we have to honor white men from the 19th century just because they had beards. Fuck AK press for trying to revive yet another profitable corpse.

Stones and fire. Let's aim for anarchy and communism.

And yet AK published "Black

And yet AK published "Black Flame," in which Proudhon is definitively excommunicated from the Church he himself founded...
=Mister Grumpy

Bakunin and Proudhon While I

Bakunin and Proudhon

While I have issues with both Proudhon and Bakunin as any individual may who evaluates things for himself I have to say that I take solidarity seriously as a major principle that should be honored within Anarchism.

I find the comments above divisive and short on facts. I would take the anonymous author more seriously if he or she could quote some sorces and make a few less sweeping statements that on there face seem to be the banalities of a secular anarchist who like all secularist thinks it's their way or the highway.

Yes Proudhon and Bakunin said many things in the 1860's through the 1890's that do not fly today. But then again any thinking man knows it is dangerous to evaluate a historical figure of the past based solely on the modern values of today. If you do respond I would like to be able to see how you adress that issue as well.

Just for the record AK Press has done a lot of good and while they are a business I feel you would do well to read some of the books they publish. Since you seem to like Bakunin I would suggest you start with AK Press's Italian Anarchism, 1864 to 1892. You might be surprised by what he thought of Proudhon.

Personally I like Bakunin a lot but I must say I like his protegee Errico Malatesta even more.

PhilR

Since I seem to be

Since I seem to be continually in the self-imposed role of shit-stirrer and contrarian, I am compelled to point out that tantalizing us with "You might be surprised by what he thought of Proudhon" is totally inadequate as well. Perhaps even more inadequate since it purports to be an actual citation, when in fact it isn't; merely mentioning a book is not a citation.

Here's the citation:
"Proudhon's contribution, in contrast [to that of Marx and Weitling], was crucial. Reading one of Proudhon's works, Bakunin exclaimed: 'That's the right thing!'--that is, freedom was attainable only through abolition of the state. Proudhon, more than any other political thinker, was responsible for transforming Bakunin's instinctive rebelliousness against authority into a formal anarchist credo."

That's it. No real surprises there, or am I missing something? It's the only place in Pernicone's book that cites Bakunin saying anything about Proudhon.

Here's a better, more fleshed-out citation:
Proudhon "remained all of his life an incorrigible idealist, drawing his inspiration sometimes from the Bible, sometimes from Roman law, and always from metaphysics. His great misfortune was that he had never studied the natural sciences, or taken up their methods" (quoted from the complete works of Bakunin in French, cited in Mark Leier's biography of Bakunin, originally St. Martin's, recently reprinted by Seven Stories).

In addition, the Pernicone book was originally published by Princeton University; you make it sound like AK published it instead of merely reprinting it (like the other Princeton University books AK reprinted, the ones by Avrich; while it's probably a good thing that AK reprints them, the sweetheart deal they made with PU was bound to raise a few eyebrows).
=Mister Grumpy

I did not mean to site the

I did not mean to site the book specifically. As to Proudhon I have collected a number of letters from both Italian and French sources.

Here is a copy (excerpt) of an 1883 letter to Malatesta from Bakunin. Most of the letter deals with Andreea Costa

Il signor Proudhon mi ha sorpreso spesso con l'incitamento che ha utilizzato per il dettaglio quello che posso prendere in considerazione solo le carenze nel mio processo di pensiero in cui l'anarchismo è interessato. Non credo che i suoi difetti, per quanto riguarda gli ebrei, dovrebbe essere considerata come una misura del suo pensiero globale. Credo che Malatesta ha colpito il segno sulla propaganda del fatto in quanto si applica alla situazione italiana.

Mr. Proudhon has surprised me often with the incite he has used to detail what I can only consider shortcomings in my own thought process where anarchism is concerned. I do not feel that his shortcomings, with regard to jews, should be looked at as a measure of his overall thought. I do believe that Malatesta has hit the mark on propaganda by the deed as it applies to the Italian situation.

I have copies of several other letters as well.

PhilR

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.