Theory of Property

Contr'un

“property must justify itself or disappear”

October 23, 2010 Shawn P. Wilbur
[one_third padding=”0 10px 0 0px”] Contr’un Revisited: [commentary coming soon] [/one_third][two_third_last padding=”0 0px 0 10px”] Once more into the breach. Proudhon’s The Theory of Property is one of those books I have been wrestling with for several years now. It’s a complicated, frustrating work, being both an attempt to summarize, clarify and rectify errors in Proudhon’s many previous writings on property and an 11th-hour departure into new territory, inspired by the major works of history and sociology which occupied much of his later career. As a posthumous work, it lacks the careful revision and finishing that Proudhon habitually gave his […]
Contr'un

Proudhon’s “New Theory” (2 of 3)

October 19, 2010 Shawn P. Wilbur
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The Theory of Property, Chapter VI: “The New Theory” (1865) [continued from section 1] § 1. —”Necessity, after having organized the State, of creating a counter-weight to the State in the liberty of each citizen. Federalist and republican character of property. Observations on the electoral census and confiscation.” Considered in its political tendencies and its connections with the State, property tends to make of government and instrument of exploitation, nothing more, nothing less. In that which concerns the system of power—whether monarchic, democratic, aristocratic, constitutional or despotic—property is by nature perfectly indifferent: what is wants is for the […]
Contr'un

Proudhon’s “New Theory” (1 of 3)

October 19, 2010 Shawn P. Wilbur
[Note: For some general thoughts on The Theory of Property, see “property must justify itself or disappear”] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The Theory of Property, Chapter VI: “The New Theory” (1865) New theory: that the motives, and thus the legitimacy of property, must be sought, not in its principle or origin, but in its aims. Presentation of these motives. Philosophy has had, for three centuries, many institutions and many beliefs: will it be the same for property? If my opinion is of any weight here, I dare to respond that it will not. Jurisprudence has not grasped thus far the causes or […]
Contr'un

Amant ou mari?

April 24, 2010 Shawn P. Wilbur
[one_third padding=”0 10px 0 0px”][/one_third][two_third_last padding=”0 0px 0 10px”] Proudhon (in)famously wrote, in What is Property?: On distingue dans la propriété : 1° la propriété pure et simple, le droit dominal, seigneurial sur la chose, ou, comme l’on dit, la nue propriété ; 2° la possession. « La possession, dit Duranton, est une chose de fait, et non de droit. » Toullier : « La propriété est un droit, une faculté légale; la possession est un fait. » Le locataire, le fermier, le commandité, l’usufruitier, sont possesseurs ; le maître qui loue, qui prète à usage; l’héritier qui n’attend pour […]