Proudhon's alleged sexism and racism

[gorillafuck]

I always hear about him holding these views, but I don't know where the people who say he held them are getting it from. Can someone direct me to the texts where he expressed these views, or give me some quotations?

[ZeroNowhere]

"The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us." Still, he never actually published anything on it, so it's basically confined to his correspondence and such. On sexism, see here (http://joseph.dejacque.free.fr/ecrits/lettreapjp.htm). I do know generally enough French to read that, but it seems that Google's translation gives a good enough idea. Also, ""I regard as baneful and stupid all our dreams of emancipating woman. I deny her every political right and every initiative. For woman liberty and well-being lie solely in marriage, in motherhood, in domestic duties, in the fidelity of her spouse, in chastity, and in seclusion."
The problem is that most of Proudhon's work (there's a hell of a lot) doesn't seem to be translated. Still, check out Schapiro if you're curious.

[Code]

You've gotta remember the times.

[Niccolò Rossi]

You've gotta remember the times.

This kind of apologism for racism and sexism makes me want to tear my hair out. Sometimes your idols were just plain wrong. Deal with it.

[Sean]

I always love how we lambast people for picking apart their bibles and only living by the bits that suit them today, and scream at their hypocrisy for ignoring all the raping and slavery, yet when this comes up you hear exactly what code just said. Then again, we don't (I hope) look on these works as sacred texts.

[apathy maybe]

I always hear about him holding these views, but I don't know where the people who say he held them are getting it from. Can someone direct me to the texts where he expressed these views, or give me some quotations?
Out of interest, why do you particularly want to have these quotes? Are you doing research into the person?

Because, frankly, you can do away with the racism and sexism, and keep the good stuff.


This kind of apologism for racism and sexism makes me want to tear my hair out. Sometimes your idols were just plain wrong. Deal with it.
I can't speak for the person you are quoting, but for me, I have no idols.

Yes, Proudhon was wrong. But to say, "remember the times" isn't, necessarily, "apologism". It might simply be an explanation.


I always love how we lambast people for picking apart their bibles and only living by the bits that suit them today, and scream at their hypocrisy for ignoring all the raping and slavery, yet when this comes up you hear exactly what code just said. Then again, we don't (I hope) look on these works as sacred texts.
As an anarchist I would be appalled by anyone treating the works of anyone as "holy word". I disgusts me the way certain "Marxists" quote Marx in response to any criticism. (And quote the "early Marx", even though he changed his views across his life time.)

We can take what we want, and ignore the bad, because we don't say it is the "holy word of God". But for Christians (or Jews, or Muslims), their holy book, is "the word of God". God said, go and kill everyone. And you had better do what God said.

But Kropotkin? He's a dead man who wrote a lot of interesting stuff, and also, incidentally, happened to be a Russian prince who supported the Allies during World War 1. The support for the allies doesn't mean that the rest of his work is suddenly invalidated though.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Because, frankly, you can do away with the racism and sexism, and keep the good stuff.

I would agree with this comment as a general rule. What is important in Marx is not each of his individual political theses on any given situation but his method.


Yes, Proudhon was wrong. But to say, "remember the times" isn't, necessarily, "apologism". It might simply be an explanation. I would agree, but I think it's pretty clear that Code's one liner is more than that.


I disgusts me the way certain "Marxists" quote Marx in response to any criticism. I never for the life of me understood this criticism. So what if they quote Marx? Where I think Marx (or any other individual for that matter) makes a valid point better and more eloquently than I can I quote him! I don't see why this should come as a surprise to anyone.


But Kropotkin? He's a dead man who wrote a lot of interesting stuff, and also, incidentally, happened to be a Russian prince who supported the Allies during World War 1. The support for the allies doesn't mean that the rest of his work is suddenly invalidated though.No, but I think it does show something about his political method (or rather, lack of one).

[apathy maybe]

I never for the life of me understood this criticism. So what if they quote Marx? Where I think Marx (or any other individual for that matter) makes a valid point better and more eloquently than I can I quote him! I don't see why this should come as a surprise to anyone.
I mean saying something like, "Marx said, 'the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles', so there". It's a logical fallacy, that I have seen on RevLeft many times before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
This particularly annoys me when people quote the Communist Manifesto, which has no real evidence to back up it's claims. (Unlike Marx's later works.)



But Kropotkin? He's a dead man who wrote a lot of interesting stuff, and also, incidentally, happened to be a Russian prince who supported the Allies during World War 1. The support for the allies doesn't mean that the rest of his work is suddenly invalidated though.No, but I think it does show something about his political method (or rather, lack of one).
Well, you're free to think that, and I can't be bothered getting upset that you are attacking an anarchist author.

[Demogorgon]

I always love how we lambast people for picking apart their bibles and only living by the bits that suit them today, and scream at their hypocrisy for ignoring all the raping and slavery, yet when this comes up you hear exactly what code just said. Then again, we don't (I hope) look on these works as sacred texts.
I agree, though at the same time, the thing about people like Proudhon is that they did have insight into other matters that it would be a shame to ignore. I am not an anarchist so don't particularly need Proudhon per se, but at the same time I do think you have to take any pre-twentieth century thinker with a large pinch of salt, because they will usually combine good insight with other pretty appalling opinions.

[Pogue]

I never found the writings of one man who lived and died 100-150 years ago that interesting anyway, but yes he was a racist and sexist turd.

[el_chavista]

What great ideas got to do with the personality of the guys who thought them? Rousseau wrote about pedagogy although he was a bad father.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This kind of apologism for racism and sexism makes me want to tear my hair out. Sometimes your idols were just plain wrong. Deal with it.

What a bizarre accusation; shouldn't MARXISTS recognize that there is a better "excuse" or "justification" for why someone like Proudhon would hold said views compared to someone living in a post-modern society? If you walk into a village in Peru, are you really going to judge their treatment of women the same as you would judge a community in Paris? No.

Nobody is saying Proudhon was right. Canning phony outrage for historical accuracy is not an apology.

[HenrikOlafson]

What great ideas got to do with the personality of the guys who thought them? Rousseau wrote about pedagogy although he was a bad father.

Maybe he just didn't like to raise children.

[Random Precision]

What great ideas got to do with the personality of the guys who thought them? Rousseau wrote about pedagogy although he was a bad father.

That's just a bit of an understatement. He abandoned his children to a foundling hospital where they most likely all died as a result of poor medical care.

[Communist Theory]

You are a sad sad excuse for a stormfront troll.

[StalinFanboy]

This kind of apologism for racism and sexism makes me want to tear my hair out. Sometimes your idols were just plain wrong. Deal with it.
He's not my idol.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What a bizarre accusation; shouldn't MARXISTS recognize that there is a better "excuse" or "justification" for why someone like Proudhon would hold said views compared to someone living in a post-modern society? If you walk into a village in Peru, are you really going to judge their treatment of women the same as you would judge a community in Paris? No.
I don't understand your point. I never attempted to explain or analysis the roots of Proudhon's views on women, jews, etc.

I was responding to a post (which in my opinion was) defending the idea that Proudhon's positions in these matters were acceptable or justified given the context he was writing in. Proudhon was a sexist and a racist. Yes, this may have been contingent on the time in which he lived but this doesn't excuse it or do away with the fact itself (which I think Code was attempting to do).


Nobody is saying Proudhon was right. Canning phony outrage for historical accuracy is not an apology.
What historical accuracy? Proudhon was a racist and there has been historical proof of this posted in the thread. I don't think Code was saying Proudhon was right but I think this one liner is tantamount of apologism (even if not intended)


He's not my idol.

I never said he was. Either way, that's nice to hear.

[Led Zeppelin]

On an unrelated(?) note, I wonder if some of the Marxist figureheads have similar baggage?:confused:

Probably.

Marx wrote some stupid insults about people who weren't white in his private correspondence (against Lasalle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm) and Lissagaray) and Engels made a stupid comment about "lazy Mexicans" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/15.htm).

However, politically Marx certainly wasn't racist, and Engels wasn't either:


In the United States of North America every independent movement of the workers was paralyzed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded.
Link (http://members.cox.net/smrose7/Marx%20on%20Racism.htm)

So this was just a case of the times being too backward for them to break out of it. That's not an excuse of course, but since their backward views on these issues didn't get into their politics it's easy for us to dismiss them without much trouble.

Unless of course there are people who won't admit that they did have some racist baggage with them, but to those people you can't really offer anything but condolences.

By the time Lenin came around though most Marxists had broken with this baggage. Homosexuality was legalized after the Russian revolution, and for the first time women and men became completely equal to the law, though of course it would've taken a long time for this to become a complete equality in all of society, and sadly that never happened given the reaction that occurred a few years later, which resulted in the ban on abortion and illegalization of homosexuality among other things.

But, it does prove that Lenin, Trotsky and other Marxists of the revolutionary internationalist type, had left all that baggage behind them, long before most of the rest of the world did.

Hell, a lot of Europe didn't even have universal suffrage for women until after 1917.

[Code]

This kind of apologism for racism and sexism makes me want to tear my hair out. Sometimes your idols were just plain wrong. Deal with it.

I did NOT say it was ok for him to be. But Marx and engles where quite sexist, George Washington & Thomas Jefferson were slave owners, etc...
And in those times almost everyone was. They were raised that way! It's definently wrong but if your told something your whole life then you almost always believe it!

[Code]

I think it's pretty clear that Code's one liner is more than that

How bout you shut the fuck up?
I'm not racist, and I'm not sexist!
Why is it that whenever anyone on this forum says something that could be interpreted (and in my case ISN'T) even slightly bad the thread turns into a goddamn smear campaign?!?

[Niccolò Rossi]

I did NOT say it was ok for him to be.

Indeed you did not. However, when I read a one liner that says "You've gotta remember the times", it seriously makes me question the intention of the poster. From that alone I'm not sure what I'm supposed to interpret your point as being other than apologism. If this is indeed not your position then I apologise for misinterpreting your comments (I think others will understand this).


And in those times almost everyone was. They were raised that way! It's definently wrong but if your told something your whole life then you almost always believe it!

Again, agreed. I'm not sure what your point is.


How bout you shut the fuck up?

Sure I may have been a little abrasive and quick to jump to conclusions but this isn't really necessary.


I'm not racist, and I'm not sexist!

I don't think you are, nor did I ever suggest that.


Why is it that whenever anyone on this forum says something that could be interpreted (and in my case ISN'T) even slightly bad the thread turns into a goddamn smear campaign?!?

I agree there is a tendency of this to happen on this forum. I however was not intending to do this. My references to your comments are not to defame or slander you but to point out the bankruptcy of this logic which many apologists try and use.

[Code]

Indeed you did not. However, when I read a one liner that says "You've gotta remember the times", it seriously makes me question the intention of the poster. From that alone I'm not sure what I'm supposed to interpret your point as being other than apologism. If this is indeed not your position then I apologise for misinterpreting your comments (I think others will understand this).



Again, agreed. I'm not sure what your point is.



Sure I may have been a little abrasive and quick to jump to conclusions but this isn't really necessary.



I don't think you are, nor did I ever suggest that.



I agree there is a tendency of this to happen on this forum. I however was not intending to do this. My references to your comments are not to defame or slander you but to point out the bankruptcy of this logic which many apologists try and use.

1. I guess I can understand that but you did misinterprit me
2.my point is that you can't point at one person in that time and condem them for something almost everyone in that time did!
3. I apologize. I just get really pissed when people insinuate that I'm something I utterly hate. (I know it's no excuse)
4. You insinuated it.
5. Intentions and results can be quite different, but I guess I may have misinturprited you (cruel irony)

[Niccolò Rossi]

2.my point is that you can't point at one person in that time and condem them for something almost everyone in that time did!

I think maybe the word condemn carries certain other inplications, but I think that we can and must. Igorning these positions (even if they can be explained by social and cultural contexts) amounts to oppurtunism. Justifying them amounts to apologism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think maybe the word condemn carries certain other inplications, but I think that we can and must. Igorning these positions (even if they can be explained by social and cultural contexts) amounts to oppurtunism. Justifying them amounts to apologism.

I agree we should not seek to find reasons for Proudhons racism and try to justify it. We can still take influence from his work though.

[Niccolò Rossi]

We can still take influence from his work though.

You can. I wouldn't.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You can. I wouldn't.

Why? Because you directly oppose all of his ideas? Or because he was sexist? I think it is pointless to say you will not read something about someone if they have been bigoted in some manner. All the famous philosophers of the time were not perfect.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think it is pointless to say you will not read something about someone if they have been bigoted in some manner.

Agreed. It has nothing to do with Proudhon's positions on women, jews, etc. in and of themselves, and everything to do with him being a petit-bourgeois, historically antiquated, reactionary. I mean sure, you can read him, my point is you won't really get anything of political value out of it.

[Code]

All the famous philosophers of the time were not perfect.

Isn't this what I said and everyone got pissed bout it

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Isn't this what I said and everyone got pissed bout it

I think they thought you were trying to justify their bigotry.

[Code]

I think they thought you were trying to justify their bigotry.

Well I wasn't
Altho I could've fraised it differently