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: https://anarchism.pageabode.com/black-flag-anarchist-review-spring-2025-issue-now-out
Anarcho wrote: His critique…
Do you care if I ask in what specific ways Proudhon's analysis of capitalism influenced Marx? If I recall correctly, Marx did indeed praise aspects of Proudhon's first major work What is Property?, but there were not many Proudhonian ideas (who was an inconsistent thinker at best) reproduced in Marx's own works; quite the contrary, Marx extensively criticized Proudhon in the Poverty of Philosophy and subsequent writings. Besides disagreeing with him intellectually, part of Marx's more public turn against Proudhon was also likely influenced by Proudhon's refusal to collaborate with Marx and other European socialists/communists in linking up to form an association, an effort which would eventually result in the Communist League (see here for Marx's letter to Proudhon, in addition to Proudhon's reply here).
In addition to opposing a prominent role for women in any revolutionary struggle or future society—despite how a large part of the international working class were and still are women, especially in the textile industry—he also opposed one of the most important tactics or weapons of workers, i.e. the strike. Proudhon in fact did quite a bit of damage to the workers' movement in France with his misogyny. As just one example, his followers in the First International, who were the first major anarchist faction within the organization and the first major current of anarchism itself, echoed his abhorrent views on women by arguing (e.g. at the Lausanne Congress) that women did not belong in industry since they supposedly reduced men's wages and that they should instead be confined to the hearth.
You're also sort of ignoring how Proudhon became a member of the Constituent Assembly in the Second French Republic following the 1848 Revolution, in addition to campaigning in other legislative elections later on; like I said, he was an inconsistent (hypocritical even) thinker at best. In addition to his active participation in the French State and his repeated efforts to get elected, Proudhon also repeatedly appealed to the French upper classes to help implement some of his mutualist ideas.
How exactly did Marxists (or Marx and Engels themselves) supposedly borrow from Proudhon the idea of workers managing their own affairs, let alone the idea of a regulated market during a transitional/revolutionary period? Proudhon hardly invented the idea of workers' self-management, regardless of whether this self-management involved commodity production or not. American workers, without ever having read Proudhon, argued for similar things in newspapers like the Voice of Industry. See, for example, this editorial article from 1848, in which the author argued for workers taking over factories from capitalists and managing industry themselves:
Anarcho wrote: Ironically,…
I'm assuming you're actually saying that, rather than stealing anything from Proudhon (unless you're also arguing that?), it's "ironic" for Marxists (and Marx and Engels themselves?) to dismiss Proudhon as petty bourgeois when, to use your own words, "the best of them suggests a model identical to his of self-managed workers' associations [and] peasants and artisans selling on a regulated market [...]" during a transitional period. First, I think the use of markets during a transitional or revolutionary period, say the Paris Commune, is quite different from advocating for markets or commodity production as part of your final vision of a socialist society, which is exactly what Proudhon did. That's part of what made Proudhon petty bourgeois. In a transitional or revolutionary period, you can't expect the foundations for a communist society based on production for need to already be in place, especially when there will likely be massive disruptions in society and other problems like shortages of all sorts of goods. Second, I don't believe "the best of the Marxists" have ever dismissed Proudhon for his support of workers' self-management, so I'm not quite sure what you're basing that claim on. It's also not very clear who exactly you're referring to when you mention how "the best of [the Marxists] suggests [...] peasants and artisans selling on a regulated market" during a transitional period.
adri wrote: Anarcho wrote:…
Yes, Marx "criticised" Proudhon in "The Poverty of Philosophy", if you count distortion, assertion, cherry-picking and invented quotes as "criticism." His valid points are few and far between.
Yes, that is why the issue includes writings by French socialist-feminists who rightly criticised his sexist position -- and why the issue criticises that rubbish. It also notes that he was wrong on the strike. As made clear, we are not aiming to raise Proudhon to an idol but seek to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Still, perhaps you can point to Marx's writings attacking Proudhon's sexism? From what you say, I'm sure he must have publicly and repeatedly raised the matter...
As for the strike, well, I can still appreciate Marx's contributions to analysis of capitalism even though he helped to downplay in socialist circles the strike and other forms of socio-economic direct action and organisation and replace it with participation in elections ("political action").
And you also ignore how in "The Confessions of a Revolutionary" he noted that the experience confirmed his earlier anti-State position. Still, should Proudhon be attacked because he took part in "political action" (as Marx had urged) in 1848 or because he opposed it before and after? Or because he changed his mind for a short while?
Not quite right but nevermind. As the issue notes, he at times (usually times of working class defeat) hope that the ruling class would pass reforms which would undermine their position -- but this was combined with a more consistent libertarian position that the workers had to free themselves, the latter position being reflected in his "On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes" and other writings around that time.
The expectation of having to note absolutely everything about Proudhon, both pro and con, in an announcement or even an article is a bit unrealistic.
Really, do I need to indicate the many Marxist programmes which talk about nationalised industries ("under workers' control"), toleration of peasant and artisan property, talk of it being impossible to instantly abolish "the market" and so on? As for Marx and Engels, their position changed so many times it is hard to summarise it. Luckily this means Marxists can draw on many quotes for any number of positions.
Did we say that he invented it? However, he raised the idea before 1848 -- as did others (and other French workers like himself), but not Marx and Engels.
Ah, right, it is the length of time which counts -- and if the "transition" period lasts decades or hundreds of years, what is the difference really? Assuming, of course, that central planning can actually work as claimed... it is easy to imagine when presenting an example of two people (as Marx did), somewhat harder when its millions of people and products...
Fine, so we ARE talking about a period of "'selling on a regulated market' during a transitional period" then?
Overall, I feel that the issue has not been even glanced at and instead we have got a mechanical response... pretty much what I had feared would happen in certain circles. Oh hum.
Anarcho wrote: As made clear…
If you're not trying to raise Proudhon to an idol, which isn't "made clear" at all—your introductory text above reads like a hagiography—then it would be nice if you tried painting a more accurate picture of him. That's all.
As for the strike, well, I…
I don't really have the time to go through all of your above claims, but real quick:
Neither Marx nor Engels ever argued for a single strategy or tactic that was universally applicable regardless of the particular political/developmental circumstances of each part of the world (e.g. the almost complete lack of bourgeois-democratic institutions in the Russian Empire). (You're also well aware of this, so I'm not sure why you seem to be arguing that Marx and Engels only supported "participation in elections" as workers' only strategy for overcoming capitalism.) Marx, for example, never advocated "participation in elections" in Russia since there were no bourgeois-democratic institutions to speak of; both he and Engels instead supported militant Narodnik groups like the People's Will, who tried inspiring a revolution among the peasantry and urban working class. Marx and Engels thought that the more militant tactics of the People's Will (e.g. the assassination of tsar Alexander II) were understandable given the severity of tsarist despotism and the relative lack of any other means for Russians to effect social change.
Regarding the strike, do you care to elaborate on what specifically you're talking about when you say that Marx "downplayed" the strike in socialist circles? Unlike Proudhon, Marx recognized the importance of the strike as an effective tactic of the working class in winning concessions, defending themselves against the demands/attacks of the capitalist class, and effecting social change in general. On behalf of the International in 1866, he also wrote "A Warning" to German and Danish workers about how Scottish capitalists were attempting to recruit strikebreakers from abroad to replace striking tailors in Edinburgh. Here's an excerpt from that text:
I wish the new Black Flag…
I wish the new Black Flag lot all the best and that, but it's really, really not the old Black Flag, is it?
Wot no sectarian notes?
Wot no sectarian notes?
Anarchos and Marxists really…
Anarchos and Marxists really need to get over this and fuck.
I’m going start my own…
I’m going to start my own project one day, call it ancom[dot]org, and produce material that will rival anarcho’s.
goff wrote: Anarchos and…
Get over what exactly?
Anarcho's actually pretty…
Anarcho's actually pretty cool—in addition to writing the Anarchist FAQ and being affiliated with hardcore punk bands like Black Flag, he founded other punk bands like Minor Threat and Fugazi and produced tons of other DIY punk bands in the '80s. Anarcho literally helped to invent the entire post-hardcore/emo genre with his production of bands like Rites of Spring. The guy's a legend!
goff wrote: Anarchos and…
...off
westartfromhere wrote: goff…
You may not like it but you know this to be necessary. Slough off the names, the iconographies, the rituals, the treasured scribes (we can stop pretending about materialism, lads, it’s shite anyway). Pick and mix from any texts you like, they’re all getting attributed to Queen Ludd, call it omnia sunt communia and bosh, you’re now free from a century of spooks. Anarcho-Marxists are allowed in if they repent.
goff wrote: westartfromhere…
Thanks for your correction, "we can stop pretending about materialism": omnia sunt communia, all are in common, not "all things held in common" (habebant omnia communia, literally, they had all in commons), and your assertion of Just (צ): "Anarcho-Marxists are allowed in if they repent."
Futuo rerum, omnia sunt…
Futuo rerum, omnia sunt communia. Probably could build an exciting mass movement around a slogan like that. Anyway, let’s continue with Marx vs Proudhon regarding the strike in 1866.
Let others deal with the…
Let others deal with the future, and past. For us, the Time is now. Salut