Customer Reviews

Proudhon: What is Property? (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Note: The previous reviewer is a known troll on various political discussion boards; he has developed a rabid hatred towards Anarchist ideology, so, if I were a customer considering this book, I would take his review with a grain of salt - it's full of very personal venom. For instance, to put Proudhon and Marx in the same category is blatant proof of the reviewer's prejudices; clearly, he has either not read the text or he is purposefully misrepresenting it. Proudhon would never have supported the authoritarianism espoused by Marx or any of his contemporaries and successors.

Proudhon's discourse on property is a great thing to pit against the theories of Hobbes, Locke, and others. He examines property both as a natural right and as one derived from labor, attempting to prove both as false. Whether or not he successfully does so is up to the reader. This is a great book for people interested in political thought and social theory; regardless of whether or not you are a staunch capitalist or socialist, this book will either give you something to think about. For strong supporters of property, it may help solidify your beliefs while you read it with critical analysis. For opponents of property, it may give you support in your beliefs, or re-affirm that which you already feel.

This book is recommended to any and all interested in the history of modern political thought; you just can't review literature as an ideologue, as the previous reviewer has shamefully done.

The title is perhaps one of the most famous rhetorical questions ever, and should be placed historically in the same range as "Quo usque tandem, Catilina" etc. Proudhon sets himself the task of analyzing the foundations of modern society, and inevitably is drawn towards a critique of the modern political economy, as was popular in the 19th century.
Just like Locke, he then "reverse engineers" the economic relations to find their basis in private property, but quite unlike Locke he brilliantly argues why this is in fact an evil thing and not a force for good, as Locke thought. Working from the hypothetical "state of nature", he shows how possession during use is a natural phenomenon, but a permanent property claim over something that was once part of nature is a later invention, and has since caused all strife and misery that competition over scarce goods is wont to do.

As a critique of modern society, this work deserves reading by everyone, regardless of whether you approve of current economic structures or not. The only downside to the book is Proudhon's rather messy attempt to offer an additional immanent critique of capitalism, which only leads the reader to conclude economic ignorance. That is a pity, for the question itself is not only worth asking, but of the various historical answers given this is one of the best argued and most radical.

Notable is Proudhon's influence on Marx and their subsequent falling out over Proudhon's idealism, as seen in his later work "The Philosophy of Poverty" and Marx's reply "The Poverty of Philosophy".

If all you know about Proudhon is that he said "property is theft," then this is the place to start learning the rest. If that is all you want to know, then skip it; you will be frustrated and disappointed. Proudhon makes a series of analyses of property theories as they existed in his era. He finds them wanting in consistency, so that they turn on themselves (basing "property," paradoxically, in what any consistent application of that very theory would consider "theft") or simply fail to deal with the complexities of even 19th century production (leading to the conclusion that property, using other standards, is "impossible.") The First Memoir ends with an early attempt by Proudhon to establish a dialectical balance between the aims of the early capitalists and early socialists, positing a form of liberty in the counterbalance of "communism and property." Proudhon's thought developed considerably after this early work, but he never abandoned the basic terms of the analysis, even when he came, towards the end of his life, that some form of property was necessary to preserve freedom.

Proudhon writes with a flair that captivates the reader and thrusts him into the revolutionary spirit. Fans of Michael Bakunin and Rudolf Rocker will love this work. One of the best reads on early anarchist thought. If you are anti-property you will love this book!

Ok, maybe not literally. Before I read this, I considered myself a right-wing libertarian with conservative elements thrown in. I based my belief that all liberty and all freedom was born through the right to own private property, and I found this "right" to be so self-evident and basic that there could be no way anyone can put forth a rational criticism without being outwardly authoritarian.

Needless to say, Proudhon proves that the 'right to private property' is an intellectual fraud. Not only does private property have no philosophical or rational basis, it is also extremely authoritarian and the negator of liberty.

Proudhon goes on an absolute wrecking spree, challenging propetarians on their own terms. From Locke to the finest political economists of his day, Proudhon takes little time making them look foolish. Proudhon makes a distinction between 'private property' and 'possession' that maybe confusing to some but is actually very clear once it is understood. I heard that in Portuguese, anarchists use to the term 'privado' property - or, deprivation property. That is what Proudhon proves; property deprives people of their rights, not protects them or grants them.

This book is a difficult read, but I am not counting that off the star rating because of the great benefit and opinion the book brings to the topic.

I am now a socialist, and I have this book to thank for that.

The idea that Proudhon was against property is one of the greatest myths about him and quite a surprising one as such. His famous statement, "Property is Theft," is later accompanied by, "Property is Liberty." In fact, his whole aim seems to be to show that property on the one hand corrupts, but that this corruption is the only possible basis for liberty - which is the ultimate aim. While Proudhon may be considered a radical, he sure was no leftwinged radical. Read for yourself! Overall he is a bit confused and confusing, his ideas of law and justice rather strange and even disturbing (law is what you cannot avoid admitting, and justice the right balance (supply and demand)). This guy took Smith a bit seriously and didn't care much about Marx's critique of society - although he has some surprisingly great critiques of communism.

proudhon didn't mean all property is theft. he didn't advocate no owner ship. He is indicating that the labourer-boss relationship is bad. that the laborourer deserves the fruits of his work and that they should not be taken away for the sake of making money to the boss and the people on the top of the hiearchy, one of the concepts that anarchism opposes.

I oppose property politically and found this book completely unhelpful. Its arguments are, without exception, specious, Proudhon's style is verbose and graceless, and his answer to the question of the book's title a verbal wrangling which reduces the work to an attack a highly specific type of ownership in favour of another. Proudhon is no anarchist and no anarchist should look to this book for inspiration. It is of hitorical interest as a stage in the development of radical philosophy, nothing more.

One of the basic concepts of Anarchism can be found within this tome, and that is the idea that "property is theft." In other words, the very act of ownership over a resource is a criminal action against the public.

I would venture to say that this book alone has killed more people than the Malleus Maleficarum. Proudhon's basic reasoning is that property depends upon the State, and the State is inherently coercive and tyrannical, therefore property must be abolished along with the State. Marx was influenced by Proudhon, and some of the ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto are similar to what we see here.

Of course it does not logically follow that the act of ownership over an object is to deprive someone else of their ability to enjoy that object as well. That would mean that everyone is entitled to all the goods and resources the world has to offer. One could easily say "I am entitled to use your house tonight", break in and crawl into your bed. By stopping him, you would be exercising coercion and authority, which under Anarchist precepts, is forbidden.

The movement to abolish private property led to Lenin/Stalin's nationalization efforts. The confiscation of farms and property. Starvation, and even mass murder.

Read it is a curiosity peice, nothing more. It is disturbing that some young people still find Proudhon's theories desirable.