Contr'un

Notes on the Notes: “They’ve a temper, some of them…”

Talking about the “Notes,” there really does seem to be a certain amount of fear that if we don’t couch our anarchism in a specific language of “anti-statism” we may somehow slide into the embrace of something we ought to oppose. Now, any set of terms or concepts can almost certainly lead us astray, if we let the terms do the leading, and not our principles. That, of course, includes those honored by time and tradition, if they have become fixed ideas. Recall that Proudhon’s assault on “property” began with a pre-Stirner warning about such things—and then recall Stirner. And […]
Contr'un

Notes on the Notes: Another thought on the relation between states and conflict

One of the common responses to my recent writing about Proudhon’s theory of “the state” has revolved around the opposition of his definitions of “state” with the “territorial monopoly on force” stuff that is so common in our circles. I think the action is elsewhere. It doesn’t look like any of the socialists in the 1849 debate were very concerned with “monopoly on force.” When Proudhon complains that “the state is external constitution of the social power,” he’s probably just agreeing with Louis Blanc (and possibly Pierre Leroux as well) about the definition of the “state,” and differing on whether […]
Contr'un

Notes on the Notes: Three (+1) Proudhon Periods?

There’s a lot to unpack and clarify in the “Notes on Proudhon’s changing notion of the state,” but one of the simplest elements to clarify may be the notion that Proudhon’s development can be roughly broken into three periods: 1839-1846: an early exploratory period, marked by early insights and some provocative statements, but also by inconsistent or non-existent definitions of key terms (“possession,” for example;) 1848-1852: a period when much of Proudhon’s focus was on the 1848 Revolution and its aftermath in the Second Republic, marked by more occasional writings, many of them related to political events and rivals, and […]