Add new comment

Nothing like a good Proudhon thread to get people responding like bots.

Anyway, for anarchists who would prefer not to be bothered with Proudhon, part of the point here is that is indeed an option—and one arguably supported by more careful readings of his work, as it appears that his project was rather different than most of us have imagined. But the way to be rid of Proudhon is pretty obviously not to cling doggedly to the bits cherry-picked by marxists in their attacks on anarchism, which are generally pretty poorly researched—or to amplify the partial interpretations, already common among anarchists, that are favored by capitalist and nationalist entryists.

For anarchists who aren't simply done with Proudhon (or books or old stuff or whatever...), maybe you're the ones who ought to be up in arms, since the heart of the argument continues to be that we've largely misused and misunderstood his work, so perhaps it simply isn't a very useful prop for whatever we think anarchism should be. Even "je suis anarchiste" and "property is theft" probably aren't what we might desire them to be. That opens more possibilities for rethinking "the anarchist tradition"—if that's your sort of thing—but the "synthesis" involved is likely to be iconoclastic enough in some of its phases to be indistinguishable in many anarchist circles from an attack.