{"id":31,"date":"2025-10-14T19:16:26","date_gmt":"2025-10-14T19:16:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/?p=31"},"modified":"2025-10-14T19:16:26","modified_gmt":"2025-10-14T19:16:26","slug":"proudhon-property-and-possession","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/proudhon-property-and-possession\/","title":{"rendered":"Proudhon, Property and Possession"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

An article summarising Proudhon’s ideas on property and possession, originally written for Anarchist Studies<\/em> in reply to a flawed article on Proudhon it had published. It was rejected due to its length and appeared in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review<\/em> No. 66 (Winter 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Proudhon, Property and Possession<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cEither competition, \u2013 that is, monopoly and what follows; or exploitation by the State, \u2013 that is, dearness of labour and continuous impoverishment; or else, in short, a solution based upon equality, \u2013 in other words, the organisation of labour, which involves the negation of political economy and the end of property.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 Proudhon, System of Economic Contradictions<\/em>[1]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) has been subject to many interpretations, from the seminal (K. Steven Vincent[2]<\/a>) to the malicious (Karl Marx[3]<\/a>). This, undoubtedly, has led to many concluding that he was a contradictory thinker but not all interpretations of his ideas have merit.[4]<\/a> He was fundamentally consistent in his libertarian socialism.[5]<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Derek Ryan Strong\u2019s \u201cProudhon and the Labour Theory of Property\u201d[6]<\/a> is, in general, a useful account of Proudhon\u2019s ideas in relation to replacing wage-labour by workers\u2019 associations. As this aspect of his ideas is often ignored or denied by commentators, it is a welcome addition to the scholarship. However, his discussion of Proudhon\u2019s views of social ownership is flawed. While quoting many of the key passages, he does not accept them and tries to explain them away by introducing commentary which is not justified to defend an assumption in favour of private property. We need to place these quotes into their rightful context to show that the Frenchman supported socialisation of property and that the communist-anarchists extended his arguments.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From \u201cCollective Force\u201d to \u201cSocial Property\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Proudhon\u2019s critique of property is multi-threaded reflecting the numerous justifications for it. His arguments for the social ownership of land and raw materials are different from those for social ownership of \u201ccapital\u201d (instruments of labour). The former is, as Strong indicates (58-9), connected to the fact no one created them while the latter relates to Proudhon\u2019s theory of collective force but they reach the same conclusion.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While quoting the appropriate passages on social ownership of capital, Strong introduces commentary which is not justified. He is right to note that Proudhon\u2019s conclusion that \u201csince all capital is social property, no one has exclusive property in it\u201d[9]<\/a> was drawn from \u201cdiscussing the issue of collective appropriation\u201d (collective force) but it is not<\/em> the case that the \u201cparticular context\u201d shows \u201cthe capital which he refers to is actually financial capital (i.e., money) as opposed to physical capital (i.e., capital goods).\u201d (59) After discussing how the capitalist who hires workers exploits them by not paying for their collective force, Proudhon argues that if the worker is proprietor of the value which he creates\u201d then \u201cit follows\u201d that since all production being necessarily collective, the worker is entitled to a share of the products and profits commensurate with his labour\u201d and so \u201call accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor\u201d.[10]<\/a> Proudhon is clearly discussing the actual process of production to show where and how exploitation occurs and so is referring to \u201cphysical capital\u201d and not<\/em> credit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strong gives only part of Proudhon\u2019s analysis when he states that the \u201cvalue created within a firm results from the collective force of workers labouring together and, therefore, his conclusion is that no one person should be its exclusive proprietor.\u201d (59) Proudhon extends<\/em> this to conclude that, to ensure this outcome, (physical) capital must become \u201csocial property\u201d and so it is not<\/em> the case that Proudhon wished it to be \u201cowned collectively by the workers in a particular firm, but not society as a whole\u201d. (59)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is confirmed by Proudhon\u2019s summation that \u201c[a]ll human labour being the result of collective force, all property becomes, by the same reason, collective and undivided\u201d and so \u201cevery instrument of labour, an accumulated capital\u201d is \u201ca collective property\u201d.[11]<\/a> Strong is wrong to suggest that it only \u201cappears as if\u201d Proudhon \u201cthought that capital goods should be common property\u201d (59) for Proudhon takes the premise that workers own the product of their labour, combines it with an analysis of how exploitation occurs within production and concludes that the means of production (\u201ccapital\u201d) must, like land and raw materials, be \u201csocial property\u201d and \u201cundivided\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reason is obvious: if ownership is invested in a specific workers association then what happens to new entrants? It is possible for a workers\u2019 association to be as exclusive as a capitalist company and hire wage-workers. Only social property ensures this does not happen so that workers leaving one co-operative can become an associate in a new one.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Property \u201cwas theft because those who legally appropriated the products of labour in capitalism were not actually responsible for production\u201d (53) but also<\/em> because it allowed the few to appropriate the means of production from its rightful owners (everyone) so reducing the rest to wage-workers (salariat<\/em>) who \u201chave sold their arms and parted with their liberty\u201d to an employer which has \u201cdegraded the worker by giving him a master\u201d and ensures \u201cthe surplus of labour, essentially collective, passes entirely\u2026 to the proprietor.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If society ensures \u201cthe firm is a contractual relationship and not a property right\u201d (57) and if property \u201cdenotes the exclusive rights assigned to an individual or specific group of people to access, use, and govern a resource, object, or set of objects in a particular way\u201d (54) then there is social<\/em> and not private property. Only social ownership means that there are no owners of a resource such as a workplace to stop others using them without first agreeing to oppressive or exploitative relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Synthesis of Property and Community<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For Proudhon, anarchism (\u201cliberty<\/em>\u201d, \u201cassociation\u201d, \u201cuniversal association\u201d or \u201cmutualism\u201d[14]<\/a>) was the \u201cthird form of society\u201d and a \u201csynthesis\u201d of property and \u201ccommunity\u201d.[15]<\/a> His opposition to both community and capitalism should not blind us to his desire for a \u201csynthesis\u201d between the two. This means taking Proudhon at his word rather than, to quote George Woodcock, suggesting that he \u201cdid not even mean literally what he said\u201d in What is Property?<\/em>.[16]<\/a> Strong follows Woodcock in suggesting Proudhon\u2019s possession is a modified form of property rather than, as Proudhon insisted, its negation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In What is Property?<\/em> Proudhon argued that everyone becomes \u201ca possessor or usufructuary\u201d which is \u201ca function which excludes proprietorship\u201d and \u201creceives his usufruct from the hands of society, which alone is the permanent possessor.\u201d[17]<\/a> He clarified this point by stressing that \u201cthis value or wealth, produced by the activity of all<\/em>, is by the very fact of its creation collective <\/em>wealth, the use of which, like that of the land, may be divided, but which as property remains undivided<\/em>. And why this undivided ownership? Because the society which creates is itself indivisible\u201d. In short: \u201cproperty in capital is indivisible, and consequently inalienable\u201d. Proudhon, then, \u201copposes the exclusive appropriation of the instruments of production\u201d and \u201cthis non-appropriation of the instruments of production\u201d would be \u201ca destruction of property. In fact, without the appropriation of instruments, property is nothing.\u201d[18]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In April 1848 he argued that \u201cto organise national workshops contains an authentic idea, one that I endorse, for all my criticisms\u201d and these \u201cworkshops are owned by the nation, even though they remain and must always remain free.\u201d The \u201cExchange Bank is the organisation of labour\u2019s greatest asset\u201d and would allow \u201cthe new form of society to be defined and created among the workers.\u201d[19]<\/a> His election manifesto of the same year saw him proclaim that \u201cunder universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social <\/em>ownership\u201d to be operated by \u201cdemocratically organised workers\u2019 associations\u201d.[20]<\/a> He empathetically denied in 1849 that he argued that the \u201cownership of the instruments of labour must forever stay vested in the individual and remain unorganised<\/em>\u201d, stating he had \u201cnever penned nor uttered any such thing\u201d, had \u201cargued the opposite a hundred times over\u201d and he wished for \u201can order wherein the instruments of labour will cease to be appropriated and instead become shared\u201d. He then sketched how \u201ctransferring ownership\u201d would be achieved by the organisation of credit that would produce \u201cworkers\u2019 associations\u201d before forming \u201cthe over-arching group, comprising the nation in its entirety\u201d.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few years later, Proudhon talks of a \u201cdouble contract\u201d between the members of the co-operative and between it and society. While its members have \u201can undivided share in the property of the company\u201d, the company itself was \u201ca creation and a dependence\u201d of society and \u201cholds its books and records at the disposition of Society, which\u2026 reserves the power of dissolving the workers company, as the sanction of its right of control.\u201d The company was to be run democratically and \u201cmay take in new members at any time\u201d so producing an institution which \u201chas no precedent and no model.\u201d[22]<\/a> The change in terminology does not obscure that the company was to be run (used) by its workers \u2013 who automatically become members of the association upon entry \u2013 under the control (ownership) of society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On his deathbed he stressed that mutualism would not be \u201ccommunity\u201d but rather an association \u201cwhich must embrace the whole of Society, and nevertheless preserve all the rights of individual and corporate [i.e., self-managed industry] freedom\u201d. While both capitalist firms and communist associations show \u201ctheir narrowness of spirit\u201d and \u201care composed by a determinate number of people, to the exclusion of all others\u201d, the \u201cmutualist association\u2026 admits\u2026 everyone in the world, and tends towards universality\u201d. Thus \u201cthe labouring masses are actually, positively and effectively sovereign\u201d because \u201cthe economic organism \u2013 labour, capital, property and assets \u2013 belongs to them entirely\u201d.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proudhon\u2019s objection to community was that while the \u201cmembers of a community\u2026 have no private property\u201d the community \u201cis proprietor, and proprietor not only of the goods, but of the persons and wills.\u201d[24]<\/a> Workers did not control their own labour (\u201cpersons and wills\u201d) nor its product (\u201cgoods\u201d) \u2013 use<\/em> was, in other words, as undivided as ownership<\/em>. The \u201centire animus of [Proudhon\u2019s] opposition to what he termed \u2018community\u2019 was to avoid the central ownership of property and the central control of economic and social decision-making\u201d.[25]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While his critique of property as theft and despotism is well known, Proudhon also suggested the \u201cmost delightful feature of property\u201d was \u201cthe free disposition of one\u2019s goods\u201d[26]<\/a> and so desired \u201cproperty restored to its proper limits, that is to say, free disposition of the fruits of labour, property MINUS USURY!\u201d[27]<\/a> Proudhon wished to \u201cretain the private possession of the land, dwelling, and tools which a worker needed\u2026 a social arrangement which would allow the worker to make the decisions relevant to the conduct and operation of his trade, either alone or with cooperation of his immediate associations.\u201d[28]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anarchists are well aware that \u201cprivate property in capital goods is possible without exploitation\u201d (58) but only when it involves workers using the tools they own as in artisan and peasant production.[29]<\/a> Unlike artisan and peasant production, capitalism divorces ownership and use: \u201cwhen the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour\u2019s labour \u2013 then property changed its nature, and its idea became complex.\u201d[30]<\/a> Would ownership by co-operatives end this complexity? No, for, as indicated above, co-operatives can be as exclusive as capitalist companies. Proudhon recognised the economic transformation produced by the industrial revolution and his arguments for workers\u2019 associations and social ownership of capital reflect this.[31]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So in capitalism ownership and use are divided<\/em> while in community they are undivided<\/em>. As indicated in Table 1: Ownership and Use<\/em><\/strong>, a synthesis that produced liberty meant that ownership had to be undivided while use was divided. Social property ensured workers would become associates not wage-workers when they join a workplace and so receive the full product of their labour. This would allow the benefits desired by both property and community to be achieved without their negative consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/td><\/td>Use (exploitative in italics<\/em>)<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
<\/td><\/td>Divided<\/strong><\/td>Undivided<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Ownership<\/strong><\/td>Divided<\/strong><\/td>Artisan \/ Peasant Capitalism<\/em><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
Undivided<\/strong><\/td>Mutualism<\/td>Community<\/em> State Socialism<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: Ownership and Use<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strong is wrong: Proudhon did<\/em> argue for the social ownership of land and capital, using the word indivise<\/em> (\u201cjoint\u201d or \u201cundivided\u201d) to describe it. Such \u201cundivided\u201d ownership by all was the framework within which possession (use) was exercised.[32]<\/a> As Jack Hayward notes, it was \u201cthe community which alone owns<\/em> property, although its use<\/em> is accorded to individual and associated producers linked by free contract\u201d and while \u201cthe means of production should be publicly owned, production itself should be organised by workers companies.\u201d[33]<\/a> Other commentators on Proudhon \u2013 Max Stirner[34]<\/a> Daniel Gu\u00e9rin[35]<\/a>, Georges Gurvitch[36]<\/a> and Robert L. Hoffman[37]<\/a> \u2013 concur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mutualism and Libertarian Communism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Proudhon rejected communism as well as community and did not extend the socialisation from the means of production to the goods created by them: workers would sell the product of their labour in markets.[38]<\/a> Those who did move from the critique of wage-labour to the wage-system like Proudhon\u2019s contemporary Joseph D\u00e9jacque and later communist-anarchists based their ideas on Proudhon\u2019s and retained the same commitment to undivided ownership and divided use: the same usufructuary position is common to both.[39]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a clear link between mutualism and libertarian communism and we discover Kropotkin arguing for distribution according to need by pointing to the contradiction between usufructuary use of commonly held means of production and the private ownership of the products created by them.[40]<\/a> However, the use of both means and goods would remain \u201cdivided\u201d and, as such, libertarian communism avoids the problems of \u201ccommunity.\u201d Indeed, Kropotkin explicitly argues that anarchist-communism would not sacrifice the individual on the \u201caltar\u201d of \u201cthe community\u201d by ensuring use rights to all socialised goods.[41]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strong is incorrect to suggest a fundamental difference in perspective between mutualism and communism. This is not to suggest that Proudhon would have embraced libertarian communism simply that his ideas on possession are at the heart of it.[42]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For Proudhon, then, it was not<\/em> the case that \u201c[e]nsuring access to capital goods need not imply common ownership of physical capital\u201d (60), he did not<\/em> \u201cmean two different things\u201d when he advocated social ownership and so did not<\/em> argue for workplaces being \u201cowned collectively by the workers in a particular firm, but not society as a whole.\u201d (59) Only social ownership\/property meant new entrants to a workplace become associates and not wage-workers. Strong fails to grasp how Proudhon\u2019s theory of \u201ccollective force\u201d shows how exploitation happens within production and<\/em> why socialisation of \u201ccapital\u201d was necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet while land, raw materials and instruments of labour (\u201ccapital goods\u201d) must be socially owned to end exploitation their use must be divided to ensure freedom. Social property was the foundation which ensured the collective use of a workplace by its associated workforce. Strong confuses use<\/em> (which is divided) with ownership<\/em> (which is not). If, as he (rightly) argues, Proudhon\u2019s position on land use \u201cis best described as usufruct, or private use of common property, rather than a type of private property\u201d (59) then this also applies to the means of production. The notion of Proudhon advocating \u201cmutualist private property\u201d (63) is incorrect and it would be better to use his term: possession<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

End Notes<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology <\/em>(Iain McKay (Editor), Edinburgh\/Oakland\/Baltimore: AK Press, 2011), 202. All quotes from Proudhon\u2019s works are from this anthology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> While The Poverty of Philosophy<\/em> (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995) is best known, Marx repeatedly commented on Proudhon throughout his life. I discuss this in my introduction to Property is Theft!<\/em> (64-79) as well as indicating on how Marx distorts Proudhon\u2019s System of Economic Contradictions<\/em> within The Poverty of Philosophy<\/em> by comparing what Marx claims Proudhon wrote with the actual text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Most obviously, J. Salwyn Schapiro\u2019s attempt to portray Proudhon as a fascist cannot withstand even a causal familiarity with Proudhon\u2019s ideas nor an investigation of the material he selectively quotes from (\u201cPierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of Fascism\u201d, The American Historical Review<\/em>, 50: 4, 714-737).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> For example, his discussion of association within mutualism in \u201cThe Political Capacity of the Working Classes\u201d (744-753) is identical to that made nearly 20 years previously within \u201cSystem of Economic Contradictions\u201d (213-215).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Anarchist Studies<\/em> 22: 1, 52-65<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> I address these issues in \u201cIntroduction: General Idea of the Revolution in the 21st<\/sup> Century\u201d (Property is Theft!<\/em>, 30-1, 37-8, 47-9) and \u201cLaying the Foundations: Proudhon\u2019s Contribution to Anarchist Economics\u201d (Accumulation of Freedom: Writings on Anarchist Economics<\/em> [Anthony J. Nocella, Deric Shannon and John Asimakopoulos (Editors), Oakland\/Edinburgh\/Baltimore: AK Press, 2012], 64-78)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> As Proudhon suggested, they are related: \u201cHere [economist] M. Wolowski pretends to think that the opponents of property refer only to property in land, while they merely take it as a term of comparison\u201d (\u201cLetter to M. Blanqui on Property\u201d, 147)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Benjamin Tucker translated this passage as \u201call accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor.\u201d (\u201cWhat is Property?\u201d, 118)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> \u201cWhat is Property?\u201d, 117-8<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> \u201cWhat is Property?\u201d, 137<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> See Proudhon\u2019s discussion of association in \u201cSystem of Economic Contradictions\u201d (213-5) and Vincent\u2019s excellent discussion (154-160)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> \u201cSystem of Economic Contradictions\u201d, 212, 192, 253. Labour renting capital does not end exploitation and so it is not \u201cdifficult to say whether or not Proudhon [like Ellerman] would have supported\u201d a situation of \u201clabour-managed firms\u201d in which \u201clabour hires in capital to produce goods\u201d and so \u201cdivorces the ownership and usage of those goods while maintaining workers\u2019 control of production\u201d. (58) Proudhon was clear: \u201cif labour is the sole basis of property, I cease to be proprietor of my field as soon as I receive rent for it from another\u2026 It is the same with all capital\u201d. Rent \u201creceived by the proprietor\u201d means \u201cto be rewarded for the use of a tool\u201d and so he \u201cliterally receives something for nothing.\u201d (\u201cWhat is Property?\u201d, 119, 123)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> \u201cWhat is Property?\u201d, 109, 136; \u201cLetter to M. Blanqui on Property\u201d, 143, 148; \u201cSystem of Economic Contradictions\u201d, 179, 255; \u201cElection Manifesto of Le Peuple<\/em>\u201d, 377. Other equivalent terms include \u201cagricultural-industrial federation\u201d (\u201cThe Federative Principle\u201d, 709) and \u201cGuaranteeism\u201d (\u201cThe Federative Principle\u201d, 718; \u201cThe Political Capacity of the Working Classes\u201d, 750)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> \u201cWhat is Property?\u201d, 136. An added confusion is the translation of \u201ccommunity\u201d as \u201ccommunism\u201d by Benjamin Tucker and others. I did not clarify the issue in Property is Theft!<\/em> by consistently correcting Tucker\u2019s translations by replacing \u201ccommunism\u201d by the more accurate \u201ccommunity.\u201d If a second edition is produced, this error will be rectified. In addition, \u201ccommunity\u201d would not be considered as communism by the likes of Kropotkin for it retained payment to members related to the amount of work done, skill expressed and money invested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography<\/em> 3rd<\/sup> edition (Montr\u00e9al: Black Rose, 1987), 45. Woodcock\u2019s account of many of Proudhon\u2019s ideas (such as on possession as property, small-scale production, late acceptance of workers\u2019 associations) seem more driven by his own rejection of revolutionary anarchism (\u201cA Personal Preface to the Third Edition\u201d, xiii-xx) than an objective summary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> \u201cWhat is Property?\u201d, 100<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> \u201cLetter to M. Blanqui on Property\u201d, 153, 149<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> \u201cLetter to Louis Blanc\u201d, 296-7<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a>Election Manifesto of Le Peuple<\/em>\u201d, 377<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Letter to Pierre Leroux\u201d, 498-500<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> \u201cGeneral Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century\u201d, 585-6. This socialisation of property included more than capital, with Proudhon indicating community ownership of housing: \u201call payments made as rental shall be carried over to the account of the purchase of the property\u2026 such payment shall purchase for the tenant a proportional undivided share in the house he lives in, and in all buildings erected for rental, and serving as a habitation for citizens . . . [housing] thus paid for shall pass under the control of the communal administration\u2026 in the name of all the tenants, and shall guarantee them all a domicile, in perpetuity\u2026 For repairs, management, and upkeep of buildings, as well as for new constructions, the communes shall deal with\u2026 building workers\u2019 associations\u201d. This also applied to land and once \u201cthe property has been entirely paid for, it shall revert immediately to the commune, which shall take the place of the former proprietor\u201d. (576, 578)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> \u201cThe Political Capacity of the Working Classes\u201d, 750, 746, 752, 761.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> \u201cWhat is Property?\u201d, 131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Vincent, 141<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> \u201cLetter to M. Blanqui on property\u201d, 155<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> \u201cElection Manifesto of Le Peuple<\/em>\u201d, 379<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> Vincent, 141<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> An artisan worker would not fear expropriation because he \u201cexploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work\u201d and so \u201cwe see no use in taking the tools\u2026 to give to another worker.\u201d (Peter Kropotkin, \u201cCommunism and the Wage System: Expropriation,\u201d Act For Yourselves: Articles from FREEDOM 1886-1907 <\/em>(London: Freedom Press, 1988), 104-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> \u201cLetter to M. Blanqui on property\u201d, 155<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> Given that many secondary sources assert \u2013 following Marx \u2013 that Proudhon wished to return to a pre-industrial economy, it must be stressed that he explicitly rejected such a position: \u201cM. de Sismondi, like all men of patriarchal ideas, would like the division of labour, with machinery and manufactures, to be abandoned, and each family to return to the system of primitive indivision, that is, to each one by<\/em> himself, each one for himself<\/em>, in the most literal meaning of the words. That would be to retrograde; it is impossible.\u201d (\u201cSystem of Economic Contradictions\u201d, 194) Compare Marx\u2019s almost identical comments suggesting Proudhon held the opposite viewpoint (The Poverty of Philosophy<\/em>, 73)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> There is a parallel here with Proudhon\u2019s position on democracy within unitarian and federalist regime, for example his comments on decentralisation in \u201cGeneral Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century\u201d (595) and elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a>Jack Hayward, After the French Revolution: Six Critics of Democracy and Nationalism <\/em>(Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), 181, 201<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> Proudhon \u201ctries to get us to believe that society is the original possessor and the sole proprietor\u2026 against it the so-called proprietors have become thieves\u201d. (The Ego and Its Own<\/em> [London: Rebel Press, 1993], 250)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Proudhon \u201cdistinguished between possession and ownership\u201d and so workers \u201cshould hold their means of production in alleu<\/em> . . . but would not be the outright owners. Property would be replaced by federal, cooperative ownership vested not in the State but in the producers as a whole, united in a vast agricultural and industrial federation.\u201d (Daniel Gu\u00e9rin, Anarchism: From Theory to Practice<\/em> [New York\/London: Monthly Review Press, 1970], 48)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> Rob Knowles quotes approvingly Georges Gurvitch\u2019s summary that \u201cthe attribution of the means of production all at once to the whole of economic society, to each region, to each group of labourers, and to each individual worker and peasant<\/em>. Individuals and groups could demand the redemption of their share [of the means of production], but not the division of federative property, which remains one and indivisible.\u201d The means of production was \u201cco-property in communal hands\u201d and so \u201ceffectively socialised\u201d and thereby change \u201cnot only its subjects<\/em>, but its nature<\/em>.\u201d (quoted in Rob Knowles, Political Economy From Below: Economic Thought in Communitarian Anarchism, 1840\u20131914<\/em> [Oxon: Routledge, 2004], 150)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> \u201cBy labour man creates products<\/em>; by this he has right to the products, but not to the land<\/em> or to any other instrument of production\u2026 Everyone had a right to possession of the means of production\u2026 Proudhon would abolish property right altogether\u2026 possession\u2026 would be granted and withdrawn by society\u2026\u201d (Revolutionary Justice: The Social and Political Ideas of P-J Proudhon <\/em>[Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972], 58-9)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a>This explains how \u201csome of the items Proudhon lists, such as a plough, are capital goods\u201d (62) for he is talking of the plough as a \u201cproduct of labour\u201d and, as such, the workers should be paid for that labour. The paid for good would then be used by the worker who bought it and who would, in turn, be paid for the goods they create using it. This would be possession and not property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a> Emma Goldman, \u201cThere is No Communism in Russia\u201d, Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader<\/em> (3rd Edition, Alix Kates Shulman (ed.), New York: Humanity Books, 1998), 406; Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism? <\/em>(Edinburgh\/London\/Oakland: AK Press, 2003), 217<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/a> Peter Kropotkin, \u201cThe Wages System\u201d, Direct Struggle Against Capital: A Peter Kropotkin Anthology<\/em> (Iain McKay (Editor), Edinburgh\/Oakland\/Baltimore: AK Press, 2014) 617-629<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/a> \u201cThe Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution\u201d, Direct Struggle Against Capital<\/em>, 125-6<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a> See his rejection of the idea of production according to ability and distribution according to need in \u201cGeneral Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century\u201d (555-7)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An article summarising Proudhon’s ideas on property and possession, originally written for Anarchist Studies in reply to a flawed article on Proudhon it had published. It was rejected due to its length and appeared in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review No. 66 (Winter 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anarchists","category-proudhon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31","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=31"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31\/revisions\/32"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}