TO KARL MARX,1846

PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON (From Correspondence, 1874-5)

Lyon, 17 May 1846

My dear Monsieur Marx,

I gladly agree to become one of the recipients of your correspondence, whose aims and organization seem to me most useful. Yet I cannot promise to write often or at great length: my varied occupations, combined with a natural idleness, do not favour such epistolary efforts. I must also take the liberty of making certain qualifications which are suggested by various passages of your letter.

First, although my ideas in the matter of organization and realization are at this moment more or less settled, at least as regards principles, I believe it is my duty, as it is the duty of all socialists, to maintain for some time yet the critical or dubitive form; in short, I make profession in public of an almost absolute economic anti-dogmatism.

Let us seek together, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are realized, the process by which we shall succeed in discovering them; but, for God's sake, after having demolished all the a priori dogmatisms, do not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people; do not let us fall into the contradiction of your compatriot Martin Luther, who, having overthrown Catholic theology, at once set about, with excommunication and anathema, the foundation of a Protestant theology. For the last three centuries Germany has been mainly occupied in undoing Luther's shoddy work; do not let us leave humanity with a similar mess to clear up as a result of our efforts. I applaud with all my heart your thought of bringing all opinions to light; let us carry on a good and loyal polemic; let us give the world an example of learned and far-sighted tolerance, but let us not, merely because we are at the head of a movement, make ourselves the leaders of a new intolerance, let us not pose as the apostles of a new religion, even if it be the religion of logic, the religion of reason. Let us gather together and encourage all protests, let us brand all exclusiveness, all mysticism; let us never regard a question as exhausted, and when we have used our last argument, let us begin again, if need be, with eloquence and irony. On that condition, I will gladly enter your association. Otherwise - no!

I have also some observations to make on this phrase of your letter: at the moment of action. Perhaps you still retain the opinion that no reform is at present possible without a coup de main, without what was formerly called a revolution and is really nothing but a shock. That opinion, which I understand, which I excuse, and would willingly discuss, having myself shared it for a long time, my most recent studies have made me abandon completely. I believe we have no need of it in order to succeed; and that consequently we should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform, because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, to arbitrariness, in brief, a contradiction. I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination. In other words, through Political Economy to turn the theory of Property against Property in such a way as to engender what you German socialists call community and what I will limit myself for the moment to calling liberty or equality. But I believe that I know the means of solving this problem with only a short delay; I would therefore prefer to burn Property by a slow fire, rather than give it new strength by making a St Bartholomew's night of the proprietors ...

Your very devoted
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

A few points:

I'll say right off the bat that a morality can't be refuted. It can be disliked, but it can never be refuted as wrong in an objective sense. You can, though, point out hypocrisies and contradictions in people's actions if they don't abide by the morality they hold dear. Like when international socialists claim they love humanity, then speak to some sections of society like mangy dogs.

Also, I don't think you can avoid imposing opinions on people. You stated the other day you taught your daughters about the patriarchy. I would state that is an imposition of an opinion on someone. Additionally, it seems like a self-refuting position to claim you don't want to impose a view on anyone, but then wanting the world to be made up of dominantly anarchists. You would have to convince others to adopt your view (imposing your opinion) that anarchism would be a good choice of 'lifestyle'.

Also, the idea of a sovereign conscience or sovereign freedom is fraught with problems. Considering we are moulded by our parents, teachers, politicians, social commentators, friends, and enemies, we would have to ask the question: What in us is truly sovereign when our behaviour is influenced by so many factors? Additionally, we are also, to an extent, trapped by our biology. How do you have a sovereign will over growing, over being attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex if you're that way inclined? How do you have freedom over deeply embedded instincts?

I think questions of free will are intimately related to anarchism, because if your will is not free, then you are deemed "oppressed" or under the will of another. This was part of the feminist and post-structuralist arguments against the "patriarchy". That women and the herd were under the spell of the "patriarchy" or the powers that be and that they needed to shrug that off and find their own will or sovereignty. So the question remains, how do you, or anyone for that matter, make a completely free decision devoid of outside interference?

Grey wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 3:37pm:


It's not necessarily the Butterfly Effect I was speaking about, but rather, how is an autonomous decision made independent of power structures, the general ideas that permeate a society, and our biological influences? Pardon me if autonomy is not relevant to anarchism, but given that you're trying to extricate yourself from foreign influences, one would naturally think autonomous decision making is central to anarchism. You can nip this in the bud now if you like: Is autonomous decision making relevant to anarchism?

The concept of community building also seems troublesome. Is there ideals on what a community should look like? Is there specific shared values that an anarchist community should possess?

Can you outline some practical applications on how a society would work free from coercion?

Can you also define what you mean by "exploitation"?

he anarchist ideal seem to be a bit too idealist to be able to work on a practical level.

[quote author=Time link=1364174580/3#3 date=1364263813]

Anarchism is a fairly simple proposition, to reverse the flow of power. To do this by fostering community building and association. To do what can be done locally through mutual aid and co-operation.

Anarchist lore strongly condemns - coercion, sexism, racism and exploitation. Women demanded equality in law and in fact. Anarchists support this naturally.   

But then you see, there,s many examples of Anarchic societies working very well; until overthrown by violence from without.
 

Morale is strong in Anarchist armies, counter intuitively discipline is not a problem,