Page 1

PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON

AND ANARCHISM:

PROUDHON’S LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT

AND THE ANARCHIST MOVEMENT

Larry Gambone

Libertarian A

lliance

Suite 35

2 Lansdowne Row

Mayfair

London

W1J 6HL

Telephone: 020 7821 5502

Email: admin@libertarian.co.uk

Website: www.libertarian.co.uk

Libertarian Heritage No. 24

ISBN 1 85637 641 9

ISSN 0959-566X

© 2004: Libertarian Alliance & Larry Gambone

The views expressed in this publication are those

of the author and not necessarily those of the

Libertarian Alliance, its Committee, its Advisory

Council, or its subscribers.

For Life, Liberty, and Property

Director: Dr Chris R. Tame

Deputy Director: Brian Micklethwait

Director of Communications: Dr Sean Gabb

Public Affairs Director: Dr Tim Evans

Editorial & Membership Director: Nigel Meek

Larry Gambone grew up in logging towns on Vancouver Island, British

Columbia. He received a degree in Sociology from Simon Fraser University in

1970 and has been active in anti-war and ecology movements since 1965. This

essay is a combined version of a two-part work first published by Red Lion

Press in 1996.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865)

PART 1: THE WORK OF PROUDHON

Introduction

It took me twenty years to get around to reading the

works of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Bakunin, Kropotkin,

Malatesta and Goldman were all familiar to me, so why

was I reticent about the “ Father of Anarchism” ? Some

of this may be attributed to the general influence of

Marx’s writings on public opinion. Marx did a hatchet

job on Proudhon and Marxists such as Hal Draper took

quotes out of context or dug up embarrassing state-

ments that made Proudhon look authoritarian or proto-

fascist. There are also anarchists who claim he is

“ inconsistent” or “ not quiet an anarchist” .1

Among

English speaking libertarians, P.J. is renown for his state-

ment “ property is theft” and his condemnation of gov-

ernment and little else.

When I finally read his works, far from appearing

“ inconsistent” or “ not quite an anarchist” , the “ Sage of

Besancon” had created a practical and anti-utopian anar-

chism— an anarchism based upon a potential within ac-

tually existing society and not a doctrine or ideology to

be imposed from outside. Since Proudhon’s conception

of anarchism was the original, and the others were de-

rived from it, if the later varieties differed significantly

from the original, perhaps there was a necessity to ques-

tion whether these differences were of a positive or

“ progressive” nature. The history of anarchism is usu-

ally treated as a linear progression from the formative

period of Proudhon to Bakunin’s collectivism, then on

to anarchist communism and syndicalism. But not eve-

rything which occurs at a later time in history is neces-

sarily better or an improvement over what went before.

For the popular mind anarchism is an irrational doctrine

of fanatics and terrorists. Yet, Proudhon’s anarchism

was rational, non-violent and anti-utopian. However,

the “ propaganda of the deed” period did provide

grounds for the negative conception. Anarchism, as it

was originally conceived, had been turned into its oppo-

site. This is not unusual in history, think only of the

original Christians and the Inquisition and of Nietzsche

and the “ Nietzscheans” .

That anarchism changed into something very different

from the original conception is not just of academic in-

terest. We face greatest challenges in our history from

the Leviathan State and the New World Order. Only a

mass popular movement can save us. A people divided

will never succeed in this endeavor. Proudhon’s phi-

losophy provides a foundation on which to build such a

movement. He is one of those rare thinkers who pro-

vides a bridge between populism and libertarianism and

between “ left” and “ right” libertarianism.

A Note to North American Readers

Most people in North America are unaware of Proud-

hon, but he did have an influence here. The newspaper

editors Charles Dana and Horace Greely were sympa-

thetic to his ideas and he influenced the American indi-

vidualists, most especially Benjamin Tucker, who trans-

lated and published some of his most important writ-

ings. His concept of mutual associations and the Peo-

ple’s Bank were forerunners of the credit union and co-

operative movements.

What Did Proudhon Mean By Anarchy?

The public thinks anarchy means chaos or terrorism.

But many people who claim to be anarchists are also

confused as to its meaning. Some think anarchism is a

doctrine espousing the right to do what ever you want.

Others dream that one day a pure anarchist utopia, a

kind of earthly Paradise of peace and freedom will come

to be. Neither of these conceptions were Proudhon’s.

“ Anarchy” did not mean a pure or absolute state of free-

dom, for pure anarchism was an ideal or myth.

[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government...

centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but

our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceas-

ingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold

the principle of federation.2

...it is unlikely that all traces of government or

authority will disappear...3

Proudhon wanted people to minimize the role of au-

thority, as part of a process, that may or may not lead to

anarchy. The end was not so important as the process

itself.

By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the

extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a

form of government or constitution in which public

and private consciousness, formed through the de-

velopment of science and law, is alone sufficient to

maintain order and guarantee all liberties... The

institutions of the police, preventative and repressive

Page 1

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON AND ANARCHISM:

PROUDHON’S LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT AND THE ANARCHIST MOVEMENT

Larry Gambone

methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a

minimum... monarchy and intensive centralization

disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and

a pattern of life based upon the commune.4

[Note: “ Commune” means municipality.]

In the real world, all actual political constitutions, agree-

ments and forms of government are a result of compro-

mise and balance. Neither of the two terms, Authority

and Liberty can be abolished, the goal of anarchy is merely to

limit authority to the maximum.

Since the two principles, Authority and Liberty,

which underlie all forms organized society, are on

the one hand contrary to each other, in a perpetual

state of conflict, and on the other can neither elimi-

nate each other nor be resolved, some kind of com-

promise between the two is necessary. Whatever

the system favored, whether it be monarchical, de-

mocratic, communist or anarchist, its length of life

will depend to the extent to which it has taken the

contrary principle into account.5

...that monarchy and democracy, communism and

anarchy, all of them unable to realize themselves in

the purity of their concepts, are obliged to comple-

ment one another by mutual borrowings. There is

surely something here to dampen the intolerance of

fanatics who cannot listen to a contrary opinion...

They should learn, then, poor wretches, that they

are themselves necessarily disloyal to their princi-

ples, that their political creeds are tissues of incon-

sistencies... contradiction lies at the root of all pro-

grams.6

In rejecting absolute anarchy and favoring an open-ended

process, Proudhon criticized all forms of absolutism and

utopianism. He saw that utopianism is dangerous, and

was a product of absolutism - the sort of thought which

fails to distinguish between concrete reality and the ab-

stract products of the mind. Anarchist theory should be

open-ended, or “ loose” . No hard-edged determinism or

“ necessary stages of history” for Proudhon.

...writers have mistakenly introduced a political

assumption as false as it is dangerous, in failing to

distinguish practice from theory, the real, from the

ideal... every real government is necessarily

mixed...7

...few people defend the present state of affairs, but

the distaste for utopias is no less widespread.8

Not only was utopia a dangerous myth, the working

people were too practical and too intelligent to bother

with such pipe dreams.

The people indeed are not at all utopian... they

have no faith in the absolute and they reject every

apriori system...9

There was no easy way out— no Terrestrial Paradise,

things might improve, but we still have to work. Such

was his hard-headed realism in contrast to all the fancy

dreaming and system-mongering of the intellectuals.

Poverty, by which he meant lack of luxury, not destitu-

tion, was the foundation of the good life.

In rejecting absolutism, Proudhon never waffled on the

question of freedom. As opposed to the modern left

which pits equality against liberty, and demands the re-

striction of the latter for the sake of the former, Proud-

hon was a resolute libertarian:

Lois Blanc has gone so far as to reverse the repub-

lican motto. He no longer says Liberty, Equality,

Fraternity, he says, Equality, Fraternity, Lib-

erty!... Equality! I had thought that it was the

natural fruit of Liberty, which has no need of the-

ory nor constraint.10 [T]he abolition of taxes, of

central authority, with great increase of local power.

There lies the way of escape from Jacobinism and

Communism.11

Proudhon’s Revolution

How would Proudhon introduce the anarchist society?

Not through utopian schemes or a wipe-the-slate-clean

revolution but,

to dissolve, submerge, and cause to disappear the

political or governmental system in the economic

system, by reducing, simplifying, decentralizing and

suppressing, one after another, all the wheels of this

giant machine... the State.12

We should not put forward revolutionary action

as a means of social reform because that pretended

means would simply be an appeal to force, or arbi-

trariness, in brief a contradiction. I myself put the

problem this way; to bring about the return to soci-

ety by an economic combination, of the wealth

drawn from society...13

We desire a peaceful revolution... you should make

use of the very institutions which we charge you to

abolish... in such a way that the new society may

appear as the spontaneous, natural and necessary

development of the old and that the revolution,

while abrogating the old order, should nevertheless

be derived from it...14

Proudhon was a revolutionary, but his revolution did

not mean violent upheaval or civil war, but rather the

transformation of society. This transformation was essen-

tially moral in nature and demanded the highest ethics

from those who sought change. Nor did his desire for

revolution make him sneer at reforms:

Page 2

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

There are no such things as minor reforms, or mi-

nor economies or minor wrongs. The life of man is

a battle, that of society a perpetual reformation; let

us therefore reform and go on reforming unceas-

ingly.15

His self-image was that of a moderate. He saw no need to

engage in holier-than-thou, more millitant-than-thee atti-

tudes.

I am one of the greatest artifers of order, one of the

most moderate progressionists, one of the least Uto-

pian and one of the most practical reformers that

exist.16

Federalism

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 fed-

eral 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.17

...the citizen who

enters the association must (1) have as much to

gain from the state as he sacrifices to it… (2) re-

tain all his liberty... except that he must abandon

in order to attain the special object for which the

contract is made... the political contract is called

federation.18 Free association... the only true form

of society.19

The system of contracts, substituted

for the system of laws, would constitute the true

government, true sovereignty of the people, the RE-

PUBLIC.20

No Black and White

Since all systems of government, including anarchy, are

of mixed nature, Proudhon was able to visualize the

types of government along a continuum. Not all govern-

ments were necessarily as authoritarian as others.

...the constitutional monarchy is preferable to the

qualified monarchy: in the same way that represen-

tative democracy is preferable to [monarchical] con-

stitutionalism.21

Nonetheless, he did divide governments into two types,

the Regime of Liberty and the Regime of Authority.

Note that anarchy and democracy are placed under the

same libertarian roof. No doubt he had the USA and

Switzerland in mind. It would be unlikely that present-

day elite democracy would still deserve to be placed

there:

Regime of Authority

1. Government of all by one: monarchy

2. Government of all by all: communism

Regime of Liberty

1. Government of all by each: democracy

2. Government of each by each: anarchy or self-

government.22

Proudhon’s Economics

Proudhon’s interests were not limited to the political or-

ganization of society. In his earliest works, such as 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

association. There were some things better left independ-

ent or private. There was also the important question of

what kind of association one should organize. He was

suspicious of all systems, whether Fourierist colonies or

communist utopias. Note how he pins the socialists to

the wall as believers in a secular religion.

Association is a dogma... a utopia... a SYS-

TEM... with their fixed idea they were bound to

end... by reconstructing society upon an imaginary

plan... Socialism under such interpreters, becomes

a religion...23

Association is a bond which is naturally opposed

to liberty, and which nobody consents to submit,

unless it furnishes sufficient indemnification... Let

us make a distinction between the principle of asso-

ciation, and the infinitely variable methods, of

which a society makes us...24 ...association applica-

ble only under special conditions...25

Association formed without any outside economic

consideration, or any leading interest, association

for its own sake is... without real value, a myth.26

Mutualism

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.

...mutualism intends men to associate only insofar

as this is required by the demands of production,

the cheapness of goods, the needs of consumption

and security of the producers themselves, i.e., in

those cases where it is not possible for the public to

rely upon private industry... Thus no systematized

outlook... party spirit or vain sentimentality unites

the persons concerned.27

Page 3

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

In cases in which production requires great division

of labour, it is necessary to form an ASSOCIA-

TION among the workers... because without that

they would remain isolated as subordinates and

superiors, and there would ensue two industrial

castes of masters and wage workers, which is re-

pugnant in a free and democratic society. But

where the product can be obtained by the action of

an individual or a family... there is no opportunity

for association.28

Proudhon was in favor of private ownership of small-

scale property. He opposed individual ownership of

large industries because workers would lose their rights

and ownership. Property was essential to building a

strong democracy and the only way to do this on the

large-scale was through co-operative associations.

Where shall we find a power capable of counter-

balancing the... State? There is none other than

property... The absolute right of the State is in

conflict with the absolute right of the property

owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force

which exists.29

...the more ground the principles of democracy have

gained, the more I have seen the working classes

interpret these principles favorably to individual

ownership.30

[Mutualism] ...will make capital and the State

subordinate to labor.31

Alienation and exploitation in large-scale industry was to

be overcome by the introduction of workers’ co-

operative associations. These associations were to be

run on a democratic basis, otherwise workers would find

themselves subordinated just as with capitalist industry.

A pragmatist, Proudhon thought all positions should be

filled according to suitability and pay was to be gradu-

ated according to talent and responsibility.

That every individual in the association... has an

undivided share in the company... a right to fill

any position according to suitability... all positions

are elective, and the by-laws subject to approval of

the members. That pay is to be proportional to the

nature of the position, the importance of the tal-

ents, and the extent of responsibility.32

Proudhon was an enemy of state capitalism and state

socialism. At the very most, government could institute

or aid the development of a new enterprise, but never

own or control it.

In a free society, the role of the government is essen-

tially that of legislating, instituting, creating, begin-

ning, establishing, as little as possible should it be

executive... The state is not an entrepreneur...

Once a beginning has been made, the machinery

established, the state withdraws, leaving the execu-

tion of the task to local authorities and citizens.33

[Coinage] ...it is an industry left to the towns.

That there should be an inspector to supervise its

manufacture I admit, but the role of the state ex-

tends no farther than that.34

The following quote is a good summary of Proudhon’s

economic and political ideas:

All my economic ideas, developed over the last 25

years, can be defined in three words, agro-

industrial federation; all my political views... politi-

cal federation or decentralization, all my hopes for

the present and future... progressive federation.35

Proudhon the Patriot

Unlike the anarchists and socialists who espoused an ab-

stract Internationalism, (workers have no country)

Proudhon was a patriot. People share a common geog-

raphy, history, culture and language. Normally, they

have positive feelings for these aspects of their lives and

with to preserve them. This is something the abstract

internationalists did not understand.

My only faith, love, and hope lie in Liberty and

my country. I am systematically opposed to any-

thing that is hostile to Liberty... to this sacred land

of Gaul.36

But France was not an abstract entity or nation state as

nationalists believed. France was the land, the people

and their language, history and culture. Proudhon de-

spised nationalism, well aware his country was com-

posed of many different regions and cultures. Only de-

centralization of political power and a federal union

would allow these different groups and localities to

thrive. Later generations of anarcho-syndicalist workers

would share these sentiments which combined liberty

and patrie. For the syndicalists the patrie was represented

by the working people and not the ruling elite whom

they regarded as parasites and traitors.

PART 2: CHANGES IN THE

ANARCHIST APPROACH

Why Did Anarchism Change?

Even though Proudhon wrote about “ anarchy” , he did

not lead an anarchist movement. Libertarians saw them-

selves as socialists or even social democrats. (The indi-

vidualist, Benjamin Tucker even went so far as to call

himself a “ scientific socialist” ) The term “ socialist” had

a much different meaning then— at that time it meant

co-operative production. Socialism as collectivism or

statism was a later development, largely a result of the

Page 4

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

hegemony of the German Social Democratic Party. The

name “ anarchist” was not adopted until 1876, some

eleven years after Proudhon’s death. This new anti-

authoritarianism was quite different from its predecessor

by espousing violence, conspiracy and communism.

There are identifiable stages in the process by which

Proudhon’s anarchism changed. The first of these was

the rejection of mutualism in favor of collectivism.

Proudhonists were instrumental in forming the Interna-

tional Working Men’s Association (First International)

which was not collectivist. However, the rising working

class militance in 1868-9 radicalized many members.

During the Brussels Congress of the International in

1868, a resolution endorsing collectivism (including that

of land) was passed. The Proudhonists objected and

many left the International. Bakunin, soon to be the

major leader of the “ anti-authoritarians” , favored the

resolution. Collectivism was not communism, but it was

a step along the way— a mid point between mutualism

and the communist utopia. Proudhon, had he been

alive, may well have considered collectivism and anar-

chist-communism as a reversion to what he had con-

demned as a “ cult of association.”

Mutualism and collectivism have little in common. Mu-

tualism seeks to maintain individual ownership of farm

land and small scale production. Large scale industry is

composed of voluntary organizations (workers’co-ops).

Collectivism seeks to collectivize all property and indus-

try, and for revolutionary collectivists this is done by

force.

The Impact of the Paris Commune

The dividing line which separates Proudhon from later

forms of anarchism was the Paris Commune. Prior to

1871, relations between the classes, which had been so

brutal at the beginning of the century, had become al-

most gentlemanly. Support for labor and even

“ socialism” was found among the upper classes. The

British Prime Minister, Disraeli, expressed sympathy for

the workers, Lincoln corresponded with the Interna-

tional and the editor and publisher of the world’s largest

newspaper, the New York Tribune, Charles Dana and

Horace Greely, were followers of Proudhon and Charles

Fourier. The specter of the armed seizure of power and

the execution of hostages by the Parisian workers under-

mined this sentiment.

While Proudhonism was the dominant form of French

working class radicalism in the decade prior to the Paris

Commune, the failure of the Commune weakened faith

in Proudhonist gradualism and peaceful change. The

aftermath of the Commune was the major cause of this

decline. Reprisals— 30,000 executed and an equal num-

ber sent to prison or deported to New Caledonia— gave

rise, as one might expect, to a

“ profound mistrust at any co-operation with the

bourgeoisie... [and] a premium was placed on the

expression of extreme revolutionary and even re-

vengeful sentiments... [this]... rhetoric would be-

come the indispensable tool of the socialist mili-

tant.”37

Even though the Commune had failed, it was considered

the example to follow. For both Bakunin and Marx, the

armed seizure of power and a revolutionary communal

government seemed the way to liberate the working

classes. Bakuninists attempted new “ Paris Communes”

in Lyon and Barcelona, both of which failed miserably.

Yet the idea of the revolutionary Commune persisted.

The failure of the Commune was a disaster for the Inter-

national, which was wrongly blamed for the event. In an

attempt to save the organization and to offset the grow-

ing influence of Bakunin (whom Marx thought was con-

spiring to take over the Int.) the Marxist faction sought

greater powers for the London-based General Council.

Many were opposed to this operation, but hostility to-

ward the Council had little to do with anarchism per se.

This was more of a fight to maintain the autonomy of

the national federations against what was seen as a

power-grab by Marx and his supporters. The “ St. Imier

International” of oppositionists organized by the Jura

Federation included Bakuninists, Proudhonists and

many non-anarchists. It was from this core group, (the

St. Imierists) that anarchist communism was to evolve.

Violence and Utopianism

With the failure of the communes of Paris, Lyon and

Barcelona and Europe-wide repression of the Interna-

tional, prospects for revolution seemed truly hopeless.

For Bakunin and his supporters, the only hope was to

keep the idea alive through the actions of a “ conscious

elite” . Thus was born the “ propaganda of the deed” as

“ the very hopelessness of the European situation demanded exag-

gerated deeds.” 38 Outside events were also influential. The

Narodnik assassinations in Russia were an important

factor in making the new anarchists sympathetic to vio-

lence.

The economic crisis in the watch making industry of

1874 had an impact as well. The Jura Federation was

composed of moderate collectivists and proto-

syndicalists such as James Guillaume. Its decline meant

increasing influence of the militant Italian International-

ists who supported insurrectionism and propaganda of

the deed. The Swiss movement finally dissolved in the

1880’s. As a result, the emphasis of the movement

shifted from the most advanced sector of continental

Europe, (France and Switzerland) to the most backward

areas, Italy and Russia. These changes could not help

but influence the development of anarchist doctrine,

most particularly in the direction of violence and con-

spiracy.

Page 5

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

The democratic countries were, in spite of the massacre

of the commune, fundamentally liberal. There existed a

concept of citizenship and law and thus the possibility

for relatively peaceful social change. In the backward

countries, the lower classes were regarded as human cat-

tle and few, if any, civil liberties existed. Conspiracy and

violence were, with some justification, considered neces-

sary. The problem arose when such ideas were trans-

posed to countries like France, Britain, and the USA.

A shift in leadership from self-educated artisans to aris-

tocrats and bourgeois also occurred. In many instances

this led anarchism away from the concrete and practical

to the abstract and utopian. It is the nature of the upper

class radicals, so distant from the realities of working

class life, to look at the world through abstractions and

self-created ideologies. This is also the very group

which tends to glorify and romanticize violence.

Along with the cult of violence came the change in eco-

nomics. Collectivism was replaced with communism.

In opposition to this new development, James Guil-

laume stated that “ it is up to the community to determine the

method... for the sharing of the product of labor” 39 and did not

lay down a hard line on mutualism, collectivism, or com-

munism. By 1876 the Italian anarchists had abandoned

collectivism in favor of communism, believing it the

only way to prevent an accumulation of wealth and

therefore inequality. For Cafiero, “ One cannot be... anar-

chist without being communist... For the least idea of limitation

contains already... the germs of authoritarianism.” 40

The Anar-

chist Declaration of 1883 stated, “ We demand for every hu-

man being the right and means to do whatever pleases him.” 41

So Anarchism was absolutized into a pure utopia— a far

cry from Proudhon’s realistic conception. Less than 15

years after his death, solid, practical mutualism had been

replaced by communist utopianism, non-violence with a

cult of violence, a horror of absolutist thinking with a

new absolutism and moderation with intolerant rhetoric.

Conclusion

Given the brutal repression of the Commune, was

Proudhon ultimately naive? Did his theory deserve su-

percession by Bakuninism and anarchist-communism?

No one should blame Bakunin’s followers for becoming

violent in the aftermath of the Commune. Such brutal

repression is traumatizing and the undermining of

Proudhon’s influence is understandable. That an event

is understandable, is one thing, but the long-term judge-

ment of history is another. Society did not become

more brutal in the developed democratic nations. The

repression of the Commune was so far (in the democra-

cies) the first and last event of its type. During the fol-

lowing century, greater freedoms were won and people

saw their incomes increase thirty-fold, the work-week

cut by half and life-expectancy double. (Even though

the tendency seems to be the reverse, of late) For the

Revolutionary anarchist-communists (no less for the

Marxists) there was a major problem: there was no revo-

lution.

Marx attacked Proudhon as a “ petty bourgeois anar-

chist” , yet France was to remain fundamentally a country

of petite bourgeois well into the 1940’s. Success for any

movement meant incorporating this group. To ignore

or condemn the petty bourgeoisie would only drive

them into the hands of the monarchists or fascists.

Proudhon’s anarchism appealed to the peasant, artisan

and professional as well as the industrial worker. And as

workers incomes increased, they too began to purchase

property. Having once done so, they were most unwill-

ing to relinquish their hard-earned gains to the sticky

hands of the Socialist State. Proudhon the peasant had a

much better grasp on reality than the bourgeois Marxists

with all their abstract thoughts and dreams.

The Bakuninists and anarcho-communists could not

foresee this, nor should we expect them to have done

so. Thus, 120 years later, by the great gift of hindsight,

we realize society evolved in a direction more suitable to

Proudhonism, than the doctrines of violence and com-

munism.42

One should also not ignore the fact that

Proudhonism existed throughout this time period and is

still around today. Mutualist and federalist movements

thrive and have an influence upon French society.43

Anarchism took more than twenty years to get back on

its feet after the disastrous “ propaganda of the deed”

period. (Some might say it never fully recovered.) Re-

covery consisted in going back to Proudhon and moder-

ate collectivists like Guillaume. A more moderate and

realistic anarchism arose - known as anarcho-

syndicalism. With syndicalism, anarchism became a

popular movement for the first, and so far, the last time.

The concept spread around the world and by the mid

1920’s millions of workers were members of syndicalist

unions. That syndicalism was destroyed by communism

and fascism in the 1930’s should not cause one to ignore

its earlier successes. For three decades a mass libertarian

movement of peasants and workers existed. Consider-

ing the overwhelmingly totalitarian direction of the

Twentieth Century, this is not something to scoff at.

Notes

(1) The charge of inconsistency is a common fallacious

means of attacking someone. What is ignored is the de-

velopment of a persons thought. Who doesn’t see

things differently at age 50 compared to their youth?

Hence, everyone is guilty of being “ contradictory.” Fur-

thermore, life itself is complex and full of contradictions.

If one wishes to mirror reality rather than invent an ide-

ology, one’s thought will at times appear contradictory.

Consistency may be aesthetically appealing, but life isn’t

as simple.

Page 6

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

(26) Ibid., p. 87.

(27) PROUDHON, 1969, op. cit., p. 62.

(28) PROUDHON, 1927, op. cit., p. 216.

(29) Pierre-Joseph PROUDHON, ‘Theory of Property’,

in DELUBAC, op. cit., p. 177.

(30) PROUDHON, 1927, op. cit., p. 210.

(31 PROUDHON, 1969, op. cit., p. 57.

(32) PROUDHON, 1927, op. cit., p. 222.

(33) PROUDHON, 1863, op. cit., p. 45.

(34) Ibid., p. 46.

(35) Ibid., p. 74.

(36) PROUDHON, 1969, op. cit., p. 195.

(37) David STAFFORD, From Anarchism To Reformism,

Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1971, p. 20.

(38) Ibid., p. 39.

(39) Caroline CAHM, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolution-

ary Anarchism 1872-1886, Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, 1989, p. 39.

(40) Ibid., p. 57.

(41) Ibid., p. 63.

(42) Proudhonism, while more successful than Bakunin-

ism, did not triumph either. The reasons for this are be-

yond the scope of this paper, but have much to do with

the dominance of statism during the 20th Century. No

libertarian or populist movement was able to overcome

this power.

(43) More than 20 million French belong to mutual aid

societies, mainly in health care. Mutuals are important in

many other countries.

(2) George WOODCOCK, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Lon-

don, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956, p. 249.

(3) Pierre-Joseph PROUDHON [Stewart EDWARDS

(ed.), Elizabeth FRASER (trans.)], Selected Writings, Lon-

don, Macmillian, 1969, p. 105.

(4) PROUDHON, 1969, ibid., p. 92.

(5) PROUDHON, 1969, ibid., p. 103.

(6) Pierre-Joseph PROUDHON, The Principle of Federa-

tion, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1863/1969,

p. 21.

(7) Ibid., p. 21.

(8) PROUDHON, 1969, op. cit., p. 56.

(9) Pierre-Joseph PROUDHON, The General Idea of

Revolution in the 19th Century, London, Freedom Press,

1927, p. 76.

(10) Ibid., p. 95.

(11) Alan RITTER, The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph

Proudhon, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1969, p.

280.

(12) PROUDHON, 1927, op. cit., p. 173.

(13) George WOODCOCK, The Anarchist Reader, Lon-

don, Fontana, 1977, p. 139.

(14) PROUDHON, 1927, op. cit., p. 174.

(15) RITTER, 1969, op. cit., p. 280.

(16) Henri DELUBAC, The Unmarxian Socialist: A Study

of Proudhon, New York, Sheed & Ward, 1948, p. 31.

(17) PROUDHON, 1863, op. cit., p. 45.

(18) Ibid., p. 38.

(19) WOODCOCK, 1956, op. cit., p. 71.

(20) PROUDHON, 1927, op. cit., p. 206.

(21) Ibid., p. 135.

(22) PROUDHON, 1863, op. cit., p. 9.

(23) PROUDHON, 1927, op. cit., p. 80.

(24) Ibid. p. 83.

(25) Ibid., p. 85.

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

Page 7

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his children

in 1853, by Gustave Courbet