The previous post, “What is certain is that property is to be regenerated among us,” has spurred some further research on the relation of The Theory of Property to Proudhon’s works of the early 1860s. Check the comment thread for a number of of interesting items from Proudhon’s correspondence, and the Libertarian Library blog for the “Notice to the Reader” from The Principle of Art, the first of the Posthumous Works.
Related Articles
Contr'un
Property is impossible?
[one_third] Contr’un Revisited: [commentary coming soon] [/one_third][two_third_last] We’re getting closer to the river’s edge, but we’re not quite prepared to “take our draught” yet. It has always seemed to me that libertarian property theory is prone to leaping straight to property’s defense—the occasions for legitimate use of force—without lingering overlong on just what it is defending. The broader the discussion—and terms like “left-libertarian” and “market anarchist” attempt to cover pretty broad swathes of ideological territory—the more pronounced the problem. The left-libertarian theory of a “spectrum” of abandonment theories seems to me pretty sound, and useful, but I have my doubts […]
Contr'un
Proudhon on possession, 1840
I see that Francois Tremblay has again raised the issue of the distinction between property and possession, citing db0 (citing Proudhon, and ultimately intervening in an old debate about Kevin Carson’s work on Roderick Long’s blog), as if somewhere in all the citations there was some clear way to distinguish “possession” from “property.” For Francois, the issue seems to be that propertarians “wish to hide the injustices of property theory under the pretense that we have no choice but to have property rights.” db0 argues that “there is a hard core difference which splits the ownership scale in half [between […]
Proudhon Library
Ms. 2846 — Theory of Property
[This page is a work-in-progress.] [1] Dedication. Persons, Property. We work to avoid the economic question. It is from this point of view that I judge contemporary politics. We imagine meeting the needs of the situation with free exchange, with pension funds, with company towns, agiotage, and pisciculture, with the jockey-club! — We are mistaken… We excite the hatred of the populations against the old dynasties; we hopes by this sacrifice to save the aristocracies. The Romanovs, the Habsburgs, the Hohenzollerns, the Bourbons, etc., that is what we offer up as fodder for the hydra. But we work to save […]