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,

On the contrary Soren, failure is a benefit, but not an experiment that needs repeating. Modern Anarchists are forward looking people. We are after all, simply following the evolutionary path; leading away from the divine right of kings towards ever greater democracy.

.....Modern Anarchists are forward looking people. We are after all, simply following the evolutionary path; leading away from the divine right of kings towards ever greater democracy.

    A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
        Gary Strand, Usenet group sci.environment, 23 April 1990. [9]

    Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.
        Marvin Simkin, "Individual Rights", Los Angeles Times, 12 January 1992:[10]

    Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
        James Bovard, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994), ISBN 0312123337, p. 333
        Also cited as by Bovard in the Sacramento Bee (1994)

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:



Bollocks.

Anarchism is about not accepting authority of any kind.  Anarchism means headlessness - no authority.

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:


How is this authority asserted? 

... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:43am:



If Mr Baker makes the best bread, respect him for that and let him get on with it. Which is to say that if you need to 'assert' your authority, you don't deserve any. If you deserve authority and it's questioned others will assert it for you.

Quote:


That ain't necessarily so.

Self interest tends to always trump altruism, in humans [and in the societies that they 'construct'/fabricate].

No ?




Q.
Who is going to stand against those [individuals or organisations] who [for the sake of their own self interest] 'assert' their own authority?
i.e.
"You cannot by bread from Mr Baker.
You must buy the bread which we make."

Government authorised agencies can do this today, in Australia, through industry 'marketing boards'.

But who decides whether Mr Bakers bread is the best? 

What happens when consensus cannot be reached?

What happens if there is not the time to sit around trying to find consensus?

Let me ask a question. Julia Gillard v Tony Abbott - how well is your system performing as far as choosing the right person to lead the country?

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:40am:

Maybe not, but that was the analogy you chose.

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 12:45pm:

It might be, but what's the difference in analogy between the defeated using democracy to achieve an outcome as opposed to the besieged using the same?

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 12:56pm:

With regard to your reply #31...
Quote:

How is democracy (at 51%) or anarchism (at 80%) a joke if it achieves an otherwise unlikely outcome?

becasue I'd rather know who the tyrant is, as in a dictatorship, as opposed to having them practice their tyranny by proxy, as they do in democracy.  Anarchism just hides under it's blanket and hysterically repeats "there are no tyrants, there are no tyrants."  Until it is predictably overrun, by tyrants.

There'll always be tyranny, oppression and all that it's just a matter of taste as to what flavour of tyranny and oppression you prefer. The nature of man will always win out against the systems designed to harness it. Democracy, Monarchy, Communism, Anarchy - All systems lead to sh!t in the end. 

Grey wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 12:31am:



Who's system?  Democracy is a dam joke.  Not only that, it seems your "anarchism" is just a less effective version of it.  80% consensus as opposed to 51% - apart from that, identical.

Scenario: A warlord is advancing on the anarchists position, with conquest, rape and pillage on their agenda. The anarchists sit around trying to work out a hierarchy and consensus on the question "should we fight or should we flee?" They're still arguing when the warlords forces arrive and slaughter the men, rape the women and enslave the children.  The end.

And that is why there are no anarchist regimes/armies.

Let me give you a tip Paulson, think first type afterwards.

Grey wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 4:24pm:



Thanks, and a tip in return - grow up.  Anarchism is unstable and unsustainable.  It exists only in a power vacuum and is a symptom of unrest.  Like a wonderful dream can only last until you wake up, anarchism can only last until someone grabs the reins of power, and grab them they will.      

Grey wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 4:56pm:

Wouldn't put my faith in that... Not only are the people at large (mostly) ignorant, they're driven by irrational moods and happy to be that way...

Hence the melodrama about boat people.

Make no mistake about it... Anarchism is mob rule.

Grey wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 5:47pm:

Below what?

Wouldn't put my faith in that... Not only are the people at large (mostly) ignorant, they're driven by irrational moods and happy to be that way...

So whether you're Left or Right, it's time to sit at the table of community politics. 

You're right grey. If you look at the number of groups, bodies, organisations and politically based web sites all rallying to the cause, you will see a great shift in thinking.....globally.

People no longer trust Canberra or the White House or any other power house of authoritarian rule, where the hob nobs make decisions that are becoming increasingly detrimental to the enjoyment of life of the ordinary citizen.

I think we will see an increase in uprisings and civilian unrest all over the developed world in the years to come.

The 99% started it, the Arab Spring continued it and who knows where it will end. We are fully fed up with the Rothschilds, the IMF, the EU, the World Bank and the oligarchs that are economically raping us all. The time for change is coming.

I have long said that after the next Great Depression (and yes there will be one) we will have small community run systems ie co-operatives, where bartering/exchanging goods and services will be the norm.

Anarchist society, sort of liberal socialism, anyway it's left enough to be right up my alley.

Come the revolution Morning, come the revolution 

Grey wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 6:40pm:



Two generations of brainwashing and indoctrination will take time to reverse, but it's happening.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 6:16am:


We need Marxist indoctrination and brainwashing don't we. That's the best kind!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 10:23am:


Well I've made it clear that Anarchism is anti revolution as such. And it certainly has not time for Marxism.

Making blueprints for human society is just plain sillyness. It's predicting the patterns caused by flushing while pissing in the bowl.

Sprouts stuff verbatim.....yeah right.

Green Left Weekly....I have never read it and as far as I can remember I have never quoted from their site.

Socialist Alliance......just one time I posted the five principles of the party.

If you had have said GetUp.org, you would have been more near the mark because I do post some of their campaigns on the forum.

Actually, a lot of stuff I post is from RT, a Russian state owned site, that's right, right leaning, but you probably still think Russia is communist.

You get confused when you put people in boxes.

Grey wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 3:45pm:



I suspect we are back to one of my original points: What constitutes an autonomous decision?

You're anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-defence force, anti-authority (except for those you agree with), anti-Church.

Grey, my thoughts are that these two knuckleheads have no beef with the principles of Anarchism whatsoever. Their only problem is they’ve heard it’s what they call "left-wing"

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:


Did you miss this one?

So how do you know others don't do the same - form opinions through observation, listening, research and thinking? Why is it brainwashing or indoctrination if they don't agree with your viewpoints?

Quote:


People wanted laissez faire capitalism, they got a GFC. They want fast food, they got fat. They wanted Hitler, Mao, & Polpot.

They want more and they're killing their planet to get it.

Maybe they'll want a better idea.

Grey, my thoughts are that these two knuckleheads have no beef with the principles of Anarchism whatsoever. Their only problem is they’ve heard it’s what they call "left-wing"

Tell them to read Hayek and leave it at that. Rest assured: they won’t.

Hayek was a vague influence on the Thatcher government, not to mention Milton Friedman. Hayek didn’t mind being thought of as a conservative anarchist.- neither did Thatcher. No such thing as society, innit. Anarchy in the UK.

Personally, I think Anarchism’s been completely usurped by freemarket libertarianism. The majority of Australians are now too bloated and effluent to risk the more experimental social and political philosophies. Thank the mining boom and five decades of social change and economic reform. We’ve reach a comfortable level of material prosperity, but in many ways, we’ve become poor. We’ve given a lot away without even thinking. How can you think? These things just seem to happen.

Mind you, we don’t mind social change - just don’t tell us it’s change. Dress it up as returning to a bygone past and we’ll eat it hook, line and sinker - with a little help from Alan and the Tele.

I have no beef with a  localised model of power as long as it’s not an abstracted, liberatory form of power - qua Bolshevism. In my experience, one social and political model can never suit all situations and circumstances. Better to do away with models altogether.

If Anarchism siincerely did this, great. As long as there’s no hint of ism left, no problem - that’s the movement I’d sign up for.

As long as I didn’t have to sign anything.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:


Did you miss this one?

So how do you know others don't do the same - form opinions through observation, listening, research and thinking? Why is it brainwashing or indoctrination if they don't agree with your viewpoints?

Grey wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


True, but in actual fact, people didn't want any of these things. They were told they'd be good for them. They were told the same with cigarettes, asbestos, thalidomide, and on and on.



Now we're told that processed food, antidepressants and internet porn will make us happy.

Freewill, you see?

Big Donger wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:



So what does this indicate? It indicates that life is full of ideologies, doctrines, schools of thought, political affiliations, theories, thought paradigms - or whatever you want to call them. There is this troubling underlying belief in this thread, and in thousands of conversations like it, that we can escape them. But, it is false, because even the most simplest conversation occurs with unnoticed predicates. Grey is slowly showing that he too has a number of fundamental rules to his anarchism, and that he's not really interested in those who think contrary to those rules.

What I find concerning amongst today's chattering classes is the belief that they are speaking for the good and the just. It's as if after 4,000 years of knowledge they've finally understood what is good and bad, and they are representatives of that. They don't realise how much they sound like the old priesthood. It's funny and ironic at the same time. They lambaste the kings, priests and all rulers of the past who claimed to be doing god's work, but fail to see the irony that they've now taken up that position. Because, it is the Christian heaven brought down to earth!!! The imaginary peace and tranquillity of heaven attempted to be made on earth!!!

But the postmodern trendy should know better than this. After all, their beliefs are grounded in post-structuralist philosophy; a philosophy whose fundamental driving force is the dissolution of all boundaries and foundations. They claim to be working for the good and just, but have absolutely no ground to make such a claim when their own philosophy rips the foundations away from them. The postmodern trendy has no right to castigate the watcher of Today Tonight, Alan Jones, and A Current Affair. They destroyed the boundaries of judgement, so they should live by it!

A bit of honesty is due. We all think in thought paradigms, we all have evaluative predicates in our judgements. Marxist, Anarchist, Capitalist, Biologist, Neo-Conservativist, Christianist, Buddhist etc etc etc etc.