Is Proudhon a socialist or anarcho-socialist?

[maxham]

We all recognize Karl Marx as the "father of Communism". But, in the other hand, in the economic theory, the idea of autogestion economic system is came from Pierre Joseph Proudhon, another leftist at about the same era as Marx does. BTW, does Karl Marx's tehories in economics encourages autogestion as Proudhon does? Thx.

[Vincent]

As far as I understand, Proudhon was an advocate of non-centralist, anti-authoritarian socialism - anarchism, basically.

A point on which he and Marx differed was that, whilst Marx advocated state ownership, Proudhon was more interested in temporary-use rights and small-scale cooperative forms of control (autogestion).

Another difference between Marx and Proudhon is that, whilst Proudhon maintained that the state should be replaced with a decentralised federation with limited powers, Marx removes this kind of 'state' altogether - or, his 'state' is not at all like Proudhon's world federalism.

Whether or not Marxist economics encourages autogestion, I'm not sure - I need to read more - but it seems as though state ownership is more of Marx's end goal than the establishment of self-managed workers associations. What I mean is, Marxist economics might to lead to such associations, but they aren't the prime goal as they are for Proudhon.

Sorry I can't reference anything ... like I said, this is just from my understanding and off the top of my head.

PS ... Marx criticised Proudhon's 1846 Philosophy of Poverty in the 1847 The Philosophy of Poverty.

[apathy maybe]

Proudhon was a mutualist, and the first person to use the term "anarchist" in a positive sense.

That's about all he offers a modern person, as most of the rest of his ideas are quite outdated (including his ideas on the family, and on race).

Mutualism is a type of socialism, if you define socialism in the broad sense (of workers power, anti-capitalism, etc.).

As for Marx being the "father of Communism", I certainly don't recognise him as such. Communist ideas have been around for a long long time, certainly since before Marx started writing.

[ZeroNowhere]

A point on which he and Marx differed was that, whilst Marx advocated state ownership, Proudhon was more interested in temporary-use rights and small-scale cooperative forms of control (autogestion).
Marx didn't advocate 'state ownership'. Proudhon was a mutualist (form of free market socialist), whereas Marx was not.


Whether or not Marxist economics encourages autogestion, I'm not sure - I need to read more - but it seems as though state ownership is more of Marx's end goal than the establishment of self-managed workers associations.
No, the dictatorship of the proletariat only lasts as long as the expropriation of the expropriators (ie. revolution). Marx's 'end goal' was the disappearance of the state (socialism, hence workers' self-management).

As for Proudhon, yes, he was a socialist. As for workers' self-management coming from Proudhon, I'm not entirely sure about that.

[Vincent]

Marx didn't advocate 'state ownership'. Proudhon was a mutualist (form of free market socialist), whereas Marx was not.
I was referring to the difference between their views on the ownership of means of production and the management of working associations in a pre-communist (socialist) society.


No, the dictatorship of the proletariat only lasts as long as the expropriation of the expropriators (ie. revolution). Marx's 'end goal' was the disappearance of the state (socialism, hence workers' self-management).
I was limiting my discussion to the dictatorship of the proletariate, since it seemed that this was where one of the main differences was.

Meh.

[revolution inaction]

We all recognize Karl Marx as the "father of Communism".

No we don't, there were communists before marx.

People using using communist to mean marxist is really annoying :cursing:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Proudhon was both. He saw anarchism as something to strive for, even if unachievable. In fact, when confronting Bastiat's conservative ideology, he proposed some forms of taxation as an immediate remedy for capitalism. I'm always reminded of how some anarchists go ape shit when one of their own thinks working towards minimal statism is somehow on par with accepting statism.

The primary difference between Marx and Proudhon rested on the subject of markets, not the "dictatorship of the proletariat," although Proudhon did view the transition to a socialist economy as less violent and more in line with reforms.

[MilitantWorker]

Fuck Proudhon.

One thing is for sure..he was a racist. He was a sexist. And he was a proponent of individualism.

So, once again, fuck Proudhon.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Fuck Proudhon.

One thing is for sure..he was a racist. He was a sexist. And he was a proponent of individualism.

So, once again, fuck Proudhon.

How was he a proponent of individualism? He was an anti-capitalist who advocated workers control. Albeit thorugh mutualism which I can't say I agree with.

[MilitantWorker]

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Proudhon against social ownership of land and the other means of production? Did he not instead favor private ownership/enterprise?

The main point here is...he's not anti-capitalist/capitalism. He was a parliamentarian who called for change through reform.

And also, he supported the South in the American Civil War because he claimed slavery in the US had social purpose, and that African Americans were an inferior race.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Proudhon against social ownership of land and the other means of production? Did he not instead favor private ownership/enterprise?

No he favoured workers self management. I'm not saying his theories were perfect but he is definitely more of a Left Anarchist than Right Anarchist.


The main point here is...he's not anti-capitalist/capitalism. He was a parliamentarian who called for change through reform.

No he wasn't. He was an Anarchist.


And also, he supported the South in the American Civil War because he claimed slavery in the US had social purpose, and that African Americans were an inferior race.

That is horrible. I had no idea about this.

[couch13]

PS ... Marx criticised Proudhon's 1846 Philosophy of Poverty in the 1847 The Philosophy of Poverty.

Marx's book was the Poverty of Philosophy.

[Idealism]

That is horrible. I had no idea about this.

He also published an article that "called for the expulsion of the Jews from France... The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated
He also openly advocated patriarchal views.

[Nwoye]

That's about all he offers a modern person, as most of the rest of his ideas are quite outdated (including his ideas on the family, and on race).

he offers probably the best critique of private property that i've seen.

[Vincent P.]

Proudhon was indeed a racist *sshole. But if we look closer, Bakunin was also a notorious anti-semite and pan-slavist. Marx's On the Jewish Question wasn't that nice either. Marx was well know to be extremely insolent and and used his influence perfidiously to kick Bakunin out of the First International.

Conslusion: the 3 of them were first class motherfucka, yet the 3 of them were geniuses of socialism. Now let's speak of their philosophies.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Fuck Proudhon.

One thing is for sure..he was a racist. He was a sexist.

Like most socialists during the 19th century. Judging people outside of their historical backgrounds is, in fact, the antithesis of Marxism.


And he was a proponent of individualism.
Is that a bad thing?


If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Proudhon against social ownership of land and the other means of production? Define social ownership. He believed workers should own the means of production, but he was not a communist. Again, what distinguishes Proudhon and the individualist socialists (Tucker, Spooner) from the collective socialists (Marx, Kropotkin) is the issue of markets. Even some collective anarchists like Goldman and Kropotkin freely took inspiration from individualist philosophy.

The difference between Proudhon and Kropotkin's visions is purely dependent on what the workers want.

[Vincent]

Marx's book was the Poverty of Philosophy.

Proudhon wrote a book called 'System of Economic contradictions: or, The Philosophy of Poverty' in 1846. See it here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/philosophy/index.htm). Marx's 1847 work 'The Philosophy of Poverty' was a rejoinder to Proudhon's book.

Marx wrote a letter to P.V. Annenkov in 1846, who had asked for Marx's opinion of Proudhon's book. The letter can be seen here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm). Robert Tucker says that the 'meat of [Philosophy of Poverty] is stated succinctly' in the letter.

For an example of what Marx thought of Proudhon (from the letter)...


To be frank, I must admit that I find the book on the whole poor, if not very poor. You yourself make fun in your letter of the 'little bit of German philosophy' paraded by Mr Proudhon in this amorphous and overweening work, but you assume that the economic argument has remained untainted by the philosophic poison. Therefore I am by no means inclined to ascribe the faults of the economic argument to Mr Proudhon's philosophy. Mr Proudhon does not provide a false critique of political economy because his philosophy is absurd—he produces an absurd philosophy because he has not understood present social conditions in their engrènement, to use a word which Mr Proudhon borrows from Fourier, like so much else.

[apathy maybe]

Fuck Proudhon.

One thing is for sure..he was a racist. He was a sexist. And he was a proponent of individualism.

So, once again, fuck Proudhon.
Nothing wrong with being a proponent of individualism. And, we are sophisticated enough (or at least some of us are), to take what is good, and reject what is bad.


Marx's book was the Poverty of Philosophy.
Indeed. The Poverty of Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poverty_of_Philosophy)


he offers probably the best critique of private property that i've seen.
A good critique, perhaps not the best.

@Vincent, except that the title of Marx's book is The Poverty of Philosophy.

[Vincent]

@Vincent, except that the title of Marx's book is The Poverty of Philosophy.

Thanks, yeah, I stuffed that up.

Does anyone know of any attempts to reconcile Marx with Proudhon? In a theoretical sense.