{"id":122,"date":"2025-11-11T07:14:13","date_gmt":"2025-11-11T07:14:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/?p=122"},"modified":"2025-11-11T07:14:13","modified_gmt":"2025-11-11T07:14:13","slug":"black-flag-anarchist-review-spring-2025-issue-now-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/black-flag-anarchist-review-spring-2025-issue-now-out\/","title":{"rendered":"Black Flag: Anarchist Review Spring 2025 issue now out"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The new issue of <em>Black Flag: Anarchist Review <\/em>is now available:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.blackflag.org.uk\">https:\/\/www.blackflag.org.uk<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Following on from our \u201cKropotkin special\u201d to mark the 180<sup>th<\/sup> anniversary of his birth, this issue is a \u201cProudhon special\u201d to mark the 160<sup>th<\/sup> anniversary of his death \u2013 and the 185<sup>th<\/sup> anniversary of his proclaiming \u201cI am an anarchist\u201d in <em>What is Property?<\/em> and so anarchism as a <em>named<\/em> socio-economic theory. His answer to his book\u2019s title (\u201cProperty is theft\u201d) is so memorable it even featured in the film <em>Oppenheimer<\/em>, where it was attributed to Marx (much to the annoyance of various internet Marxists)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<p>Anyone familiar with Proudhon\u2019s 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\u2019 self-management of production, decentralised and decentred socio-economic federation of workers\u2019 associations and self-governing communities based on the election of mandated and recallable delegates, free agreement \u2013 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Likewise with tactics, with Proudhon stressing the need for social transformation to come <em>from below<\/em>, 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\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Saying that, we are not suggesting that Proudhon somehow <em>invented<\/em> 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cProudhon. 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&#8230; 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&#8230;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cBut 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.\u201d (\u201c\u00dcber den Begriff des Kleinb\u00fcrgers\u201d, <em>Die freie Gesellschaft<\/em>, 4. Jg. [1953], Nr. 38)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We include a range of articles on Proudhon across many decades, including a new translation of a work by Daniel Gu\u00e9rin (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 \u2013 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 \u2013 the first by British council communist Sylvia Pankhurst of Proudhon\u2019s <em>General Idea of the Revolution<\/em> from 1923, another of Marx\u2019s <em>The Poverty of Philosophy<\/em> which compares what Marx claimed Proudhon wrote to what he actually did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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&#8217;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 \u2013 unity, centralisation, hierarchy \u2013 have developed to secure that rule. As such, reproducing those features and expecting them to not to recreate minority rule is utopian \u2013 in this, history has uttered its judgement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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) \u2013 association for industries marked by wage-labour under capitalism, voluntary association for artisans and peasants. Ironically, for all the Marxist dismissal of Proudhon as \u201cpetit-bourgeois\u201d, when it comes to their specific vision of the \u201ctransitional period\u201d the best of them suggests a model identical to his of self-managed workers&#8217; 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\u2019s position).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Context is also important in terms of his ideas. Yes, he critiqued \u201cdemocracy\u201d but that was in its centralised, unitarian, Statist form \u2013 he advocated a decentralised, federal democracy and extended it to the economy (coining the term \u201cindustrial democracy\u201d to describe it). Yes, he critiqued \u201csocialism\u201d but, again, in its centralised, unitarian, Statist form \u2013 he repeated called himself a socialist, considered himself part of \u201cthe socialist democracy\u201d and advocated clearly socialist policies such as socialisation and workers\u2019 control (which is more than can be said of some considered by his critics as better \u201csocialists\u201d than he!). To ignore such context \u2013 as, say, J. Salwyn Schapiro did \u2013 is to present a knowingly bad-faith account of his ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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 <strong><em>all<\/em><\/strong> who have analysed capitalism and its workings \u2013 we need not excommunicate anyone, least of all because Marx proclaimed them \u201cpetty bourgeois\u201d and obsessively commented negatively (and usually inaccurately) on their work over his lifetime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Original translations which appear in <em>Black Flag: Anarchist Review<\/em> eventually appear on-line here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/translations\/index.html\">https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/translations\/index.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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, Elis\u00e9e Reclus and Luigi Fabbri, amongst others. Plus the usual reviews and news of the movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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 <em>Black Flag Anarchist Review<\/em> continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This issue\u2019s editorial and contents are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Editorial<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Welcome to the first issue of <em>Black Flag<\/em> in 2025!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Following on from our Kropotkin special of Autumn 2022, we mark the 160<sup>th<\/sup> anniversary of the death of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon \u2013 and the 185<sup>th<\/sup> anniversary of him writing \u201cI am an anarchist\u201d \u2013 with an issue dedicated to his contribution to anarchism. Needless to say, this is not to suggest that we embrace his ideas uncritically \u2013 his views on women (to take an obvious example) are so backward as to be misogynistic. Yet, Bakunin considered his own ideas as \u201cProudhonism widely developed and pushed right to these, its final consequences\u201d and many revolutionary anarchists since have engaged fruitfully with his ideas, separating the wheat from the chaff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The first comprehensive collection of Proudhon\u2019s writings only appeared in 2011, with the anthology <em>Property is Theft!<\/em> although selections of his writings did appear in various collections of anarchist writings. This issue builds upon that collection, although we start with articles on Proudhon from a variety of periods. These discuss his ideas and address various claims made against him and his ideas. As will be seen, much of the \u201cconventional wisdom\u201d regarding him is often wrong, incomplete (selective!), exaggerations or lacking context (whether historical or textual).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then we turn to works by Proudhon. These are split into three eras \u2013 those written between 1840 and 1847, those from 1848 to 1851 (the February Revolution) and then those from 1852 to 1865 (the federalist period). These are mostly new translations and hopefully supplement the material already available, showing why Proudhon is still relevant and deserves to be taken seriously even if we reject certain aspects of his ideas or recognise their limitations. We do not expect or desire that all of Proudhon\u2019s ideas are accepted, simply that we gain a better understanding of them and why he was, during his lifetime and for years after his death, so influential in European socialist and labour movements. He deserves better than the smug dismissal of Marxists \u2013 and those anarchists who consider credibility in those circles as more important than knowing our history and ideas. As will become clear, Proudhon can be considered the first modern socialist and was a trail-blazer on many ideas which are a staple of anarchist theory and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For those interested in finding out more on Proudhon, then Shawn P. Wilbur ( libertarian-labyrinth.org ) has done sterling work on translating his writings. Also of note is the <em>Property is Theft!<\/em> website ( property-is-theft.org ).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If you want to contribute rather than moan at those who do, whether it is writing new material or letting us know of on-line articles, reviews or translations, then contact us:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-right\">blackflagmag@yahoo.co.uk<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Contents<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>On Proudhon<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Jeanne Deroin, <em>Letter to Proudhon<\/em>, January 1849<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Jenny P. d\u2019H\u00e9ricourt, <em>A Woman\u2019s Philosophy of Woman; or Woman Affranchised<\/em> (1864)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cProudhon\u2019s Mutualism and Anarchism\u201d, <em>Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism<\/em>, February and March 1902<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Benjamin R. Tucker, \u201cProudhon and Royalism\u201d, <em>The New Freewoman: An Individualist Review<\/em>, 10 October 1913<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nicola Chiaromonte, \u201cPierre-Joseph Proudhon: an uncomfortable thinker\u201d, <em>Politics<\/em>, January 1946<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Daniel Gu\u00e9rin, \u201cP.J. Proudhon, father of self-management\u201d, <em>Proudhon, Oui et Non<\/em> (1978)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Iain McKay, \u201cProudhon, Property and Possession\u201d, <em>Anarcho-Syndicalist Review<\/em> No. 66 (Winter 2016)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Daniel Rashid, <em>The Poverty of Mick Armstrong\u2019s Polemic<\/em> (2022)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Iain McKay, <em>Proudhon: \u201cstart by being right\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1840-1847: The Critique of Property<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Warning to the Proprietors<\/em> (1842)<ul><li><strong><em>Theory of Property<\/em><\/strong><ul><li>3. \u2014 That since property destroys itself, it is irrational, from a practical point of view, to want to defend it.<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>4. \u2014 That to reform property is to destroy it.<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>5. \u2014 Exposition of Adam Smith\u2019s formula on equality in exchanges<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>6. \u2014 Demonstration of the equality of conditions by Adam Smith\u2019s formula<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong><em>Response to Accusations<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Court of Assize of the Department of Doubs<\/em> (Session of 3 February 1842)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>System of Economic Contradictions<\/em> (1846)\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong><em>Chapter XIV: Summary and Conclusion<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Marginal Notes to <strong>The Poverty of Philosophy<\/strong><\/em> (1847)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1848-1851: The February Revolution<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Toast to the Revolution<\/em>, 17 October 1848<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cElection Manifesto of <em>Le Peuple\u201d<\/em>,<em> Le Peuple<\/em>, 8 November 1848<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cResistance to the Revolution: Louis Blanc and Pierre Leroux\u201d, <em>La Voix du Peuple<\/em>, 3 December 1849<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cTo Pierre Leroux\u201d<ul><li>[First Article\/Letter],<em> La Voix du Peuple<\/em>, 7 December 1849<\/li><\/ul>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>[Second Article\/Letter], <em>La Voix du Peuple<\/em>, 13 December 1849<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cRegarding Louis Blanc: On the Present Utility and Future Possibility of the State\u201d<ul><li>(First article), <em>La Voix du Peuple<\/em>, 26-27 December 1849<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>(Second article), <em>La Voix du Peuple<\/em>, 28 December 1849<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>(Third article), <em>La Voix du Peuple<\/em>, 29 December 1849<\/li><\/ul>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>(Sixth article), <em>La Voix du Peuple<\/em>, 11 January 1850<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1852-1865: Federalism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d\u2019\u00c9tat of December 2<\/em> (1852)\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong><em>X. Anarchy or Caesarism \u2014 Conclusion<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Stock Exchange Speculator\u2019s Manual<\/em> (1857)<ul><li><strong><em>Preface<\/em><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong><em>Final Considerations<\/em><\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>3. Industrial democracy: Labour-labour partnership or universal mutuality; end of the crisis<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Federation and Unity in Italy<\/em> (1862)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>The Federative Principle and the need to reconstitute the party of the revolution<\/em> (1863)<ul><li><strong><em>Second Part \u2013 Unitary Politics<\/em><\/strong><ul><li>Chapter III: Democratic Monogram, Unity<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>Chapter XI: Hypothesis of a Solution by the Federative Principle<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong><em>Third Part \u2013 The Unitary Press<\/em><\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Chapter IX: Slavery and the Proletariat<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>To Workers<\/em>, 8 March 1864<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Reviews<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Sylvia Pankhurst, \u201cThe Views of Proudhon\u201d, <em>Workers\u2019 Dreadnought<\/em>, 5 and 12 April 1924<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Iain McKay, \u201cThe Poverty of (Marx\u2019s) Philosophy\u201d, <em>Anarcho-Syndicalist Review <\/em>70 (Summer 2017)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Letter to M. Bitzon,<\/em> 18 September 1861<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The new issue of Black Flag: Anarchist Review is now available: https:\/\/www.blackflag.org.uk Following on from our \u201cKropotkin special\u201d to mark the 180th anniversary of his birth, this issue is a \u201cProudhon special\u201d to mark the 160th anniversary of his death \u2013 and the 185th anniversary of his proclaiming \u201cI am an anarchist\u201d in What is [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blackflag","category-proudhon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":123,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122\/revisions\/123"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}