Proudhon and His Influence on Anarchy - Essay Example

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and His Influence on Anarchy "Property is the last of the false gods." -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anarchy in a real sense of theword is thinking that perceives any government's behavior to be in a position of a narcissist who looks in the mirror all the time. The opinion that anarchy is a situation where everybody is looting and killing is actually ignorance forced upon the public by media and lack of understanding. There is a difference between an anarchist movement and philosophical adherents of anarchy. The main two pioneers of the formative period were: a Frenchman, Pierre Proudhon and his Russian disciple in exile Mikhail Bakunin. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the son of a brewer, was born in Besancon, France in 1809. He attended the local school but was primarily self-educated at the town's public library. Proudhon, was among the inventors of socialism, along wih Marx, Bakunin, Blanqui, Blanc, Herzen, Lassalle and Engles. Of these, Proudhon had the profoundest effect upon the workers' movement in the 19th century and his ideas influenced some of the most notable later anarchists, including both Tolstoy and Bakunin, both of whom knew Proudhon personally. Indeed, throughout his life Proudhon acquired and kept a remarkable collection of friends, and as his notoriety spread, acquaintances. Before Proudhon, the word 'anarchist' had been exclusively used as a derogatory epithet to be flung at one's political opponents. Proudhon was the first person to adopt the label with enthusiasm. He denounced the 'government of man by man' as 'oppression,' and in its place advocated a society based on 'equality, law, independence, and proportionality' which 'finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.' He defined 'anarchy' as 'the absence of a master, of a sovereign,' and envisaged a society in which 'the sovereignty of the will yields to the sovereignty of reason. For Proudhon: " Capital in the political field is analogous to "government". The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them. What capital does to labor, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason." ("What is Property", Pierre Proudhon 1840, page 23). One exception to this position was his Proudhon's sexism, causing Joseph Dejacque (as well as subsequent anarchists) to attack Proudhon's support for patriarchy as being inconsistent with his anarchist ideas. In his earliest works, Proudhon analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected those contemporary socialists who idolized association. In series of commentaries, from "What is Property" (1840) through the posthumously published "Theorie de la properiete" (Theory of Property 1863-64) he declared in turn that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism", and "property is freedom". When he said property is theft, he was referring to the landowner or the capitalist who he believed stole the profits from laborers. For Proudhon, the capitalist employee was subordinated, exploited; his permanent condition is one of obedience. In asserting that property is freedom, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisans home and tools of his trade and the income he received by selling his goods. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property was labor. Proudhon was remarkably consistent in his thinking about economic issues, but that his rhetoric changed considerably over the years, and that the tactics he adopted in dealing with an understanding of "property" as always somewhat "impossible" shifted slightly. First published in 1840, Proudhon's "What Is Property An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government" was a forceful critique of private property and government. To the question contained in the title of the book, Proudhon replied that 'property is theft,' earning for him the enmity of the right and the respect of the revolutionary left. He achieved prominence through "What Is Property" (1840, tr. 1876), in which he condemned the abuses of private property and embraced anarchism. When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that "Property is theft", he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense of "right of use and abuse"; in property-rights, on the other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best protection against the encroachments of the state. He also edited radical journals. After the Revolution of 1848, he was elected a member of the constituent assembly; at that time he tried unsuccessfully to establish a national bank for reorganization of credit in the interest of the workers. As a replacement for the existing social and political order, Proudhon developed a theory of "mutualism", by which small, loosely federated groups would bargain with each other over economic and political matters within the framework of a consensus on fundamental principles. He hoped that man's ethical progress would eventually make government unnecessary and rejected the use of force to impose any system. Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists. They desire a society in which the economy is organized around a free market, and production is done by self-employed workers and farmers. Mutualists also belongs to a group of left-oriented anarchists and therefore support cooperation as opposed to competition. The term laissez-faire, shorthand meaning "let do, let go, let pass" - let the producers produce what they want and sell what they want. At the same time he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labor cheques representing the hours of labour required to produce every given commodity. A system for labour producing every given commodity, which Proudhon described as "Mutuellisme", all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent. Proudhon proposed mutualism as an alternative both to capitalism and socialism. Mutualism was not a scheme, but was based upon his observation of existing mutual aid societies and co-operatives as formed by the workers of Lyon. But the co-operative association in industry was applicable only under certain conditions - large scale production. According to Proudhon, economic and social exploitation was correlated with political oppression. Nothing is feasible by spontaneous initiative, independent actions of individuals and collectivities as long as they are in the presence of this colossal power which is given to the State by centralization. Proudhon argued that all political systems have sought to achieve a balance between the two poles of authority and liberty, and the efficacy of political systems can be gauged by how well the system balances the two. Regimes of authority, Proudhon argued, are characterised by the rule of "all by one" and the non-division of power. Regimes of liberty by contrast are regimes characterised by the rule of 'each by each' (anarchy) or democracy 'all by each'. Proudhon argues, all societies have moved from autocratic rule towards democratic forms by virtue of the sheer complexity of governing beyond the confines of your immediate kin. As government has become more complicated, as powers are divided and distributed by kings and overlords to vassals, it has become more and more a de facto form of rule and less and less de jure. Paradoxically, Proudhon argues, where authority is dispersed, each delegate must act with the authority of the sovereign, and in tones later echoed by Foucault, Proudhon argued that "In 1793 the founders of democracy thought they had performed a miracle in cutting off the king's head, while pursuing a centralising policy - an illusion which should no longer deceive anyone." (Proudhon 1979:17) Proudhon viewed modern democracy with the utmost scepticism. While universal suffrage was to be applauded, Proudhon saw that democracy exhibited only a semblance of self rule. In a telling quote he demonstrates quite succinctly the limits and contradictions of democratic modes of government. As soon as political function becomes specialised, Proudhon saw a degeneration in the democratic principle. Politicians and other then saw the perpetuation of their function as their principle task and democracy becomes lost in bureaucracy. Therefore, the division of powers is necessitated by the very nature of large political systems. Proudhon, however, does not stop there. His theory of the state postulates that liberal democratic institutions are display monarchical tendencies, and that pure political forms cannot exist. Political institutions are thus always de facto and should therefore seek methods which do not aim at the idealisation of systems, but the acceptance of the necessary diversity in political processes, while maximising the potential for the realisation of individual liberty. Needless to say, Proudhon believed his ideas of federalism fit the bill perfectly. Despite these apparently radical pronouncements against property and government, Proudhon rejected neither property nor government completely. In place of the right to property, which he defined as the right to use and abuse something as one pleases, he put forward usufruct or the right of possession, which he defined as the right to possess and to use the land, tools and implements necessary to maintain one's economic independence.What Proudhon really objected to with respect to private property was the earning of income from the labour of others through such means as rent, interest and wage labour. After paying employees their wages, the capitalist retains the remaining profit without contributing any productive labour himself. Associated together, the workers create a productive capacity greater than the sum of their individual powers, but it is the capitalist who reaps the benefit. The workers acquiesce in their own exploitation because their only alternatives are starvation and misery. Proudhon's solution was to advocate equivalent exchange of products directly between the associated workers themselves, with value being determined by the cost of production and the amount of labour time. To this basic scheme he was later to add proposals for free credit and a system of mutual guarantees. In 1846 Proudhon published his major economic work, the two volume System of Economic Contradictions, or, The Philosophy of Poverty where he criticized his socialist contemporaries for their utopianism and condemned the bourgeois economists for their complacency. He argued that the existing economic system inevitably produces exploitation and misery due to its own internal contradictions. Such contradictions cannot be resolved by mere piecemeal reform, but only through the creation of a higher synthesis - mutualism. It is in "General Idea of the Revolution" that Proudhon presents his most detailed picture of this mutualist alternative. "The System of Economic Contradictions" elicited little notice, except from Marx, who responded with a vitriolic critique, "The Poverty of Philosophy", in which he attacked both Proudhon's economic theory and his use of Hegelian dialectics. Proudhon intended to reply, but was soon occupied with more important things - the 1848 Revolution in France. Proudhon defended his idea of spontaneous order arising through free interaction. "The ideal republic," he wrote, "is a positive anarchy" in which "every citizen, by doing what he wishes and only what he wishes, participates directly in legislation and in government, as he participates in the production and circulation of wealth". For Proudhon, property and society are incompatible. In Chapter Two of "What is Property", Proudhon wrote: "Property...is a right outside of society; for it is clear that if the wealth of each were social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all...Thus, if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; thus if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social but antisocial. Property and society are completely irreconcilable with one another. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to joint two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property." (Proudhon, What is Property, p. 42-3.) At the core of this conception is the principle of equality. Rights, by definition, are equal rights. Liberty, must be liberty for all, for "Liberty is the original condition of man; to renounce liberty is to renounce the quality of man." (Proudhon, What is Property, p. 38.) This conception of property, was essentially a peasant's view of property relations. Proudhon knew little of the industrializing 19th century world. His experience was the experience of the peasant and small shopkeeper. Nevertheless, it was a vision that captured essential points about the transition from an agrarian to an industrialized society, and it clearly was a vision many of his contemporaries shared. The fame which "What Is Property" brought Proudhon, propelled him into the forefront of radical politics for the rest of his life, indeed throughout the 19th century and on through the Spanish Civil War. He was by far a more well known and influential figure than Marx as the revolutions of 1848 erupted. The main themes of Proudhon's thought were constant throughout most of his work. He criticized political revolutions from above, clearly identifying the darker side of the socialist vision to which revolutionaries in the Marxist tradition have succumbed. Centralized government, organized for whatever purpose, is an evil to be countered by a decentralized, mutualist economy. The federalist theme which runs through his work was designed to counter the centralization of the developing nation states. It was a federalism far different from the federalism pursued in the United States or Switzerland. It was a federalism in which real power resided at the local level, rather than being "devolved" from on high. Finally, he clearly identified the working class as an autonomous revolutionary force which would eventually win its own freedom. Proudhon left a great mass of literature, which influenced the French syndicalist movement. Among his most important books are "System of Economic Contradictions; or The Philosophy of Poverty" (1846; tr. of Vol. I, 1888) and "De la justice dans la rvolution et dans l'glise" (Of justice in the revolution and in the church) (3 vol., 1858). Proudhon was merely advocating the replacement of one form of government, government based on the will of the sovereign, with another form of government, government based on reason, or as Proudhon described it, "scientific socialism," an idea largely derived from Saint Simon. He seriously proposed that all questions of domestic and foreign politics be decided by the Academy of Sciences on the basis of detailed statistics. Later on Proudhon came to adopt voluntary contract as the primary means of economic and political coordination. Proidhon saw individual contracts, freely entered into between parties of roughly equal bargaining power, as the surest safeguard of liberty.Although Proudhon does not flinch from soliciting government assistance in achieving economic change, his overall revolutionary programme is decidedly democratic, anti-authoritarian and decentralist. He again advocates that the Bank of France be transformed into a Bank of Exchange, but insists, as before, that it be turned into a self-governing democratic institution instead of being converted into a state-owned and controlled monopoly. Similarly, he proposes that public works, railways and large-scale industrial enterprises be turned over to the workers themselves to be managed and controlled by their own democratic associations. He conceives of the future socialist sodiety as being composed of a variety of self-governing, directly democratic organizations, from the township to the teachers college, with no central authority above them. Central to Poudhon's economic scheme is his concept of equivalent exchange. Tied to this notion of equivalent exchange is his idea of contract. Individual contracts of equivalent exchange, freely entered into, are to replace all governmental institutions and coercive ties. Only those obligations which the individual himself has freely assumed have any binding force.Central to Proudhon's notion of contract is the idea of self-assumed obligation. A person is only obligated to do that which he has freely undertaken to do. The only form of direct democracy compatible with this conception of obligation is one in which it is recognized that a minority which has refused to consent to a majority decision has assumed no obligation to abide by it. Majority decisions are not binding on the minority. Any agreement to the contrary would itself be invalid because it would require the minority to forfeit its autonomy and substantive freedom. Proudhon himself pointed the way with his dictum, 'associate and be free.' In a society comprised of a multiplicity of autonomous groups, each of which has voluntary membership and none of which has any authority over the others, individuals will be free to associate with and dissociate from whomever they please. Each particular group will have a fairly cohesive social composition due to the strictly voluntary nature of its organization. Dissatisfied or dissident members will be free to form their own associations or to join one of any number of other groups for which they may have a greater affinity. Even those who find it difficult to work with others will have every opportunity to provide for themselves, with credit freely available and open markets for the exchange of their goods. The individual will be free in both the political and the economic sense, in accordance with Proudhon's anarchist ideal. This is not a 'no government' system, strictly speaking, but a pluralist system of self-government without the state. In contrast, a capitalist society with a form of representative government offers the worker neither political nor economic freedom. Workers are politically free only to vote periodically to elect someone to rule over them and to sanction their exploitation. Regardless of whom they vote for or whether they vote at all, they are not free to refuse the jurisdiction and authority of the government. Membership in this "association" is compulsory and obedience is enforced by coercive laws.The motivating force in society is justice, which he defined as "spontaneous respect for human dignity". He developed a political conception of contract to parallel the economic conception of contract defended in "General Idea of the Revolution". He recognized the need for the groups comprising society to associate for political purposes distinct from economic transactions. Yet the structure of his contrat remained essentially the same. The political contract creates reciprocal obligations between the parties with the object of securing them more rights and liberties than they abandon. Society is conceived as being composed of a variety of autonomous groups, each with a democratic form of organization, which freely federate with one another for their mutual benefit and advantage. The way to achieve self-government or anarchism on a large scale was through federation. Proudhon wished to dissolve authority and the State with the aid of the federal system. Note in the following quotations how the State is still assumed to exist, yet is being set on the path of abolition. The contract of federation, whose essence is always to reserve more powers for the citizen than the state, and for municipal and provincial authorities than for the central power, is the only thing that can set us of the right path. Proudhon's interests were not limited to the political organization of society. In his earliest work What is Property he analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to contemporary socialists who idolized assocoation. There were some things better left independent or private. There was also the important question of what kind of association one should organize. "Property is theft!" This slogan, which gained much notoriety, was an example of Proudhon's inclination to attract attention and mask the true nature of his thought by inventing striking phrases. He did not attack property in the generally accepted sense but only the kind of property by which one man exploits the labour of another. Property in another sense--in the right of the farmer to possess the land he works and the craftsman his workshop and tools--he regarded as essential for the preservation of liberty, and his principal criticism of Communism, whether of the utopian or the Marxist variety, was that it destroyed freedom by taking away from the individual control over his means of production.In the somewhat reactionary atmosphere of the July monarchy in the 1840s, Proudhon narrowly missed prosecution for his statements in "What Is Property"; and he was brought into court when, in 1842, he published a more inflammatory sequel, "Avertissement aux propritaires" (Warning to Proprietors, 1876). In this first of his trials, Proudhon escaped conviction because the jury conscientiously found that they could not clearly understand his arguments and therefore could not condemn them.In 1846 he took issue with Marx over the organization of the Socialist movement, objecting to Marx's authoritarian and centralist ideas. Shortly afterward, when Proudhon published his "Systme des contradictions conomiques", or "Philosophie de la misre" (1846; System of Economic Contradictions: or, The Philosophy of Poverty, 1888), Marx attacked him bitterly in a book-length polemic "La misre de la philosophie" (1847; "The Poverty of Philosophy", 1910). It was the beginning of a historic rift between libertarian and authoritarian Socialists and between anarchists and Marxists which, after Proudhon's death, was to rend Socialism's First International apart in the feud between Marx and Proudhon's disciple Bakunin and which has lasted to this day. Reference: 1. Marx, Carl; The Poverty of Philosophy; Prometheus Books New Ed edition; London, June 1995 2. Proudhon, P. J; General Idea of the Revolution; Dover Publications; London, March 8, 2004 3. Proudhon, P. J.; System of Economic Contradictions; Ayer Co Pub; London, July 1972 4. Proudhon, P. J; What Is Property; Humboldt Publishing Company; Paris, 1840 Read More