The new issue of Black Flag: Anarchist Review is now available:
Following on from our “Kropotkin special” to mark the 180th anniversary of his birth, this issue is a “Proudhon special” to mark the 160th anniversary of his death – and the 185th anniversary of his proclaiming “I am an anarchist” in What is Property? and so anarchism as a named socio-economic theory. His answer to his book’s title (“Property is theft”) is so memorable it even featured in the film Oppenheimer, where it was attributed to Marx (much to the annoyance of various internet Marxists).
Anyone familiar with Proudhon’s work can quickly see the debt later anarchists owe him. His placing of anti-capitalism alongside anti-statism defined anarchism. His critique of property, his analysis of exploitation occurring in production, his rejection of wage-labour all fed into revolutionary anarchist (and Marxist) analysis of capitalism. His arguments for self-management, socialisation, possession, use-rights and socio-economic federalism are all found in the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin and other revolutionary anarchists. Indeed, anyone sketching the positive vision of libertarian ideas would, undoubtedly, include such features as common ownership of land, socialisation of industry, workers’ self-management of production, decentralised and decentred socio-economic federation of workers’ associations and self-governing communities based on the election of mandated and recallable delegates, free agreement – all, and more, can be found in Proudhon long before these were championed by the likes of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and Rocker even if they rejected his market socialism in favour of other forms of distribution (such as libertarian communism).
Likewise with tactics, with Proudhon stressing the need for social transformation to come from below, by the initiative, activity and self-organisation of working people; the new organisation of labour can only be the task of labour, workers must emancipate themselves and must rely upon only themselves and not a government; the key terrain is the socio-economic one and that is where we need to organise and build alternatives. While Proudhon’s focus was co-operative credit, production and consumption to reform capitalism away, subsequent anarchists recognised the correctness of the strategy if not the specific tactics advocated (union took precedence over cooperatives).
Saying that, we are not suggesting that Proudhon somehow invented anarchism nor that it was fully-formed in 1840 (or 1865 or, for that matter, now). We mean that Proudhon articulated a tendency in the European labour and socialist movements, laying its foundations and differentiating it from other trends. Subsequent anarchists built upon his work, developing aspects of it and rejecting others. Given his pioneering role, it is sensible to remember him and to determine his strengths and weaknesses. As anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker suggested:
“Proudhon. I have read not only all of his works, but also his 14 volumes of correspondence with great benefit. I still have a complete collection of all of his daily newspapers, from which one can gain a true picture of him and his time. Anyone who thinks that Proudhon can simply be dismissed as a petty bourgeois has never made the effort to really get to know him... Almost all the great pioneers of socialist thought came from the camp of the petty bourgeoisie, the big bourgeoisie, the aristocracy and the intellectuals. Only Weitling, Proudhon and a few others came from the working class. (Please note! I am not talking here about the followers of socialism, but about its theoretical founders.) When I emphasize here that Proudhon came from the working class and had to earn his living as a typesetter for many years of his life, I do not consider this to be his special advantage and even less the cause of his intellectual development....
“But anyone who sees Proudhon as a philistine or even a narrow-minded person has never tried to penetrate his work or even do him justice as a human being. Proudhon was, without doubt, one of the boldest thinkers of all time and raised problems that will continue to concern people for centuries to come. He was also a real fighter who followed his inner convictions with incorruptible honesty and never kept quiet about things that needed to be said out of convenience or personal calculation. No man was hated as bitterly by reactionaries of all shades as he was, something he often had to experience first-hand. A man who had to languish in prison for years for his convictions and who, already plagued by illness, was only able to escape new persecutions by later being banished, was certainly not a philistine. However one may judge his views, no one can in good conscience make this accusation against him.” (“Über den Begriff des Kleinbürgers”, Die freie Gesellschaft, 4. Jg. [1953], Nr. 38)
We include a range of articles on Proudhon across many decades, including a new translation of a work by Daniel Guérin (albeit one which contains much which is familiar). Then follows a selection of writings, many of which are newly translated for this issue. These are grouped by period – 1840 to 1847 (when his critique of capitalism was at the forefront), 1848 to 1851 (the February Revolution, when practice was key) and 1852 to 1865 (when federalism was the predominant focus along with calls for the separation of the working classes from bourgeois society which was later championed by revolutionary syndicalism). We end with two reviews – the first by British council communist Sylvia Pankhurst of Proudhon’s General Idea of the Revolution from 1923, another of Marx’s The Poverty of Philosophy which compares what Marx claimed Proudhon wrote to what he actually did.
We are confident that reading what Proudhon wrote rather than what others assert he wrote is enlightening. It becomes clear he had a wide-ranging critique of capitalism and never limited it credit. Likewise, it becomes clear that Proudhon's opposition to the State was driven by an awareness that it was an instrument of (minority) class rule, that it exists to defend the owning class against the working class. Moreover, the characteristics of the State – unity, centralisation, hierarchy – have developed to secure that rule. As such, reproducing those features and expecting them to not to recreate minority rule is utopian – in this, history has uttered its judgement.
Historical context is also important. This applies both to his bigotries as well as his ideas which are relevant today. His position on association, peasants and artisans reflects the objective reality of his time, where the majority of the working classes were peasants and artisans, not proletarians (a situation which lasted well into the twentieth century) – association for industries marked by wage-labour under capitalism, voluntary association for artisans and peasants. Ironically, for all the Marxist dismissal of Proudhon as “petit-bourgeois”, when it comes to their specific vision of the “transitional period” the best of them suggests a model identical to his of self-managed workers' associations, peasants and artisans selling on a regulated market (the worst, simply state-capitalism). Likewise with the issue of peasants and artisans, with the best rejecting forced collectivisation (which is the only alternative to Proudhon’s position).
Context is also important in terms of his ideas. Yes, he critiqued “democracy” but that was in its centralised, unitarian, Statist form – he advocated a decentralised, federal democracy and extended it to the economy (coining the term “industrial democracy” to describe it). Yes, he critiqued “socialism” but, again, in its centralised, unitarian, Statist form – he repeated called himself a socialist, considered himself part of “the socialist democracy” and advocated clearly socialist policies such as socialisation and workers’ control (which is more than can be said of some considered by his critics as better “socialists” than he!). To ignore such context – as, say, J. Salwyn Schapiro did – is to present a knowingly bad-faith account of his ideas.
Finally, just to state what should be obvious, none of this is to suggest that we replace Marx with Proudhon or any other such notion. We are not Marxists and can recognise the contributions of all who have analysed capitalism and its workings – we need not excommunicate anyone, least of all because Marx proclaimed them “petty bourgeois” and obsessively commented negatively (and usually inaccurately) on their work over his lifetime.
Original translations which appear in Black Flag: Anarchist Review eventually appear on-line here:
https://anarchistfaq.org/translations/index.html
This year we aim to continue to cover a range of people and subjects. These should hopefully include the 1905 Russian Revolution and articles on and by the likes of Louisa Sarah Bevington, Alexander Berkman, Elisée Reclus and Luigi Fabbri, amongst others. Plus the usual reviews and news of the movement.
However, this work needs help otherwise at some stage it will end. Contributions from libertarian socialists are welcome on these and other subjects! We are a small collective and always need help in writing, translating and gathering material, so please get in touch if you want to see Black Flag Anarchist Review continue.
This issue’s editorial and contents are here: https://anarchism.pageabode.com/black-flag-anarchist-review-spring-2025…
Add new comment