What Is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government

by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

What Is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government is one of Proudhon's classic works on anarchism and mutualism. A table of contents is included.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, Theory, Anarchism, Classics

233 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1840

About the author

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (15 January 1809 – 19 January 1865) was a French socialist, politician, philosopher, economist, and the founder of mutualist philosophy. He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist, using that term and is widely regarded as one of anarchism's most influential theorists. Proudhon is considered by many to be the "father of anarchism". Proudhon became a member of the French Parliament after the Revolution of 1848, whereafter he referred to himself as a federalist. Proudhon described the liberty he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property". Some consider his mutualism to be part of individualist anarchism while others regard it to be part of social anarchism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-...

Reviews

[Joshua Crompton]

When checking the 'I own this book' option, I thought to myself, do I?

[Luís · Rating 4 out of 5]

That's a tribute to the one who used the word anarchy for the first time for political purposes and this thesis. Proudhon was a singular being for whom anarchy was order and who, using mathematical calculation, applied to demonstrate that property is theft.

[Eric G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

In just under 500 pages, P.J. Proudhon seeks to prove his thesis that Property (as defined by private and/or capitalistic property - and the social relations that it produces) is a form of theft or robbery. Secondly, Proudhon contends that the social relations created by Property are the root cause of exploitation, crime, and inequality in society. As stated in the book, This book proved to be legnthy, convoluted, and perplexing. As Proudhon commences in proving his thesis and accumulating evidence, he does not hesitate to argue in tangent form and often takes a paragraph to release a passionate diatribe. In short terms, Proudhons argument boiled down contends that society is inherently equal, and it is Property (rather than possesion) that abolishes this equality. To be a proprietor (or to own property)distrupts the natural progression of simple economic principles - that is - an exact mathematical balance of labor, production, and consumption which is typically the foundation of society. Without taking away from the argument, Proudhon defines and utilizes such terms as equality, liberty, justice, and right in loose manner. Furthermore, the economic terms used in the argument are both broad and general. At times Proudhon will include precise mathematical calculations and then turn in the next sentence to philosophical insight. Like most other Anarchist theorists (if it is at all possible to call them that) Proudhon is relentless in his convictions and convincing in the abstract. While attempting to ground his argument in concrete examples, Proudhon's language and wording often lose their fervor and it becomes difficult to follow. However, the argument itself is sensible, critical, and valid.

[Carlo Mascellani · Rating 5 out of 5]

Analisi lucidissima della proprietà, dei suoi effetti, della sua origine dai tempi dei romani sino all'epoca dell'autore. Proudhon esamina e ricerca il senso della proprietà per mostrarne l'iniquità di fondo, la mancanza di giustificazione, le pastoie giuridiche che hanno tramutato l'originario, semplice possesso in un diritto acquisito e trasmissibile. In tal senso la proprietà viene da lui definita un furto: un diritto accaparrato e gelosamente custodito, un'arma da contrapporre alle frange più povere della società, un ulteriore mezzo discriminatorio in una società sempre più ineguale. Un testo che fa riflettere...

[tara bomp · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a book I'd recommend as an introduction to anarchism or something like that but still a fascinating and fiery text. Most notable on the "very bad" side is that women are referred to approximately twice, where they're called as different to men as men are to goats and it's said they should probably be "excluded from society"! Christ. This is symptomatic of a wider problem, where he doesn't really seem to consider the full implications of what he says past the abstract - for example he seems to still believe in nations and the structure of French society post-revolution, although he's not really explicit. In addition, his reasoning is based to a very large extent on the ideas of external non-human "justice", "liberty" and "reason," which is hard to accept now, especially as he says a lot of things are "just" or whatever with no reasoning, which makes his uncritical acceptance of his own society's ideals even more obvious and awkward.

Despite this, I still enjoyed it and found his arguments interesting. His demolition of the concept of property based on the arguments used in defence of it at the time is incredibly effective and not really diminished by changing defences since. His style is passionate and, even though antiquated, inspiring. His vision of society isn't really detailed and is pretty utopian but still good reading. As a historical document, his adherence to the ideals of and regular references to the French Revolution as well as his clear rooting in that tradition is interesting.

overall pretty decent but very varied and what you get out of it depends on what you're expecting

[Otto Lehto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pierre-Joseph was a troll. He used words to hurt people and institutions - often unfairly. He loved every moment of it. He knew how to upset good society and how to gain notoriety, and his writing style was designed to make him hated among the right circles, and admired in the wrong ones.

As an economic treatise, What is Property? is laughable. As a pamphlet from an agent provocateur, it is a job well done. His economic analysis is confused, outdated and fascinatingly destructive. The treatise, full of wild assertions and simply faulty premises, contains a few original and wonderful ideas, still relevant for today, but they are wrapped in paradoxes such as the famous "Property is Theft" and the even more mysterious "Property is Impossible." The author evinces a poor understanding of basic economic theory. His grasp of history is slightly better, and the best parts of the book - aside from the rhetorical flourish of his pen - are the asides in the history of property ownership in various societies.

But an academic treatise this is not: it is literary terrorism. Proudhon attacks with a blunt mace, on whose bloodied side he has attached the caricatured pictures of his enemies - other philosophers, communists, liberals, lawyers, politicians, landowners, aristocrats, bourgeois elites - in order to raise hell and facilitate societal chaos.

Proudhon, ever haughty, justifies his terrorism with the loftiness of his goals: a society without inequality, illegitimate authority and oppression. Like the liberals, he extols the virtues of liberty. Even though his main target is the propertied class and their lackeys, he offers a biting criticism of communism and other rising trends of collectivism. He hated everyone, including his friends.

But the biggest fault of the book is that, after demolishing everything and everybody, he cannot offer a prudent analysis of the ways in which his theory of the right of "possession" under perfect "equality" could be institutionalized, turned into practice. Even anarchism needs its institutional analysis, even if the institutions it calls for cannot be state-managed or -run. Purely destructive criticism is not enough. At the end of the book, Proudhon acknowledges as much, but shrugs it off.

Perhaps he WAS right to shrug it off, since the book would not have been the sensation it was, had it been pruned of its outrageous assertiveness, philosophical sophistry and rhetorical paradoxes.

The destructiveness of his analysis anticipates the nihilism of contemporary attacks on property on the left. But his true friends were the Bohemian pranksters of the Parisian salons of his time and the teenage cyber-trolls of today's millennial generation. Whether in the 19th Century, or in the 21st, there is a class of people - let us call them trolls, nihilists, social engineers or mad geniuses - who like to attack sacred cows, from a privileged position, as a self-selected vocation. Proudhon's verbosely violent treatise was meant to be, and should be read as, a piece of art, a big "FU" to society, rather than a fully serious philosophical project to be dissected in the halls of academia.

It is hard to pin down what Proudhon actually thought, since he preferred to hide behind obfuscations. And his positions are rather all over the place. Perhaps because of his need to shock, perhaps because of non-diagnosed autism, he uses reductio ad absurdum to the point of madness. Second tactic, perhaps because of Hegelian influence, was to see the two contradictory sides to every issue - the light and the dark. His rhetorical flourish should be seen dialectically, as the attempt at a reconciliation of opposing forces. "Property", for Proudhon, stands for all that is bad in ownership and possession, contrary to the common usage of the word. It should be pointed out, in other words, that ownership as such was NOT Proudhon's enemy - despite the impression!

But, more often than not, the paradoxical nature of his assertions was not because of any lofty philosophical position - the owl of Minerva soaring above issues, observing the world from a disinterested perspective, carefully untangling the so-called contradictions of mere mortals - but simply the result of carefully crafted intellectual charlatanism. The treatise, half-sincere, half-joke, is a monstrosity, a freak of nature. Proudhon's anarchism is not ready-made; he fishes for ideas, tries them out on the page. His anarchism is watered down by halfhearted monarchism; his liberalism by halfhearted socialism; his egalitarianism by his recognition of unequal natural talents; his attack on property by his recognition of the need to grant people free access to possessions. Proudhon wants to have his cake and eat it too. "Let him eat cake, then," quoth he proprietor.

Overall, there is much to deplore in the hucksterism of What is Property? It is a morally dubious, economically unsound and philosophically fraudulent thesis. But it hits a nerve. Still does today. It touches on the important questions of our economic order: what is the foundation of our unequal status in life? What is the role of the state in determining economic and social outcomes? What is the role of "court intellectuals" in justifying established wisdom at the expense of the poor and the oppressed? Can property be regulated without destroying it? Can we, ever, live without it?

Even if Proudhon cannot be taken entirely seriously, he discovered something absolutely vital: a criticism of property that must be taken seriously even by the staunchest defenders of property.

Anarchism, even of the left-variety (although the anarchists of the right have certainly done a better job articulating their ideals), is one of the most important and under-explored intellectual alleys of the last couple hundred years, since it challenges the basic assumptions of our life, and does so from the perspective of an honest lover of truth - while giggling all the way the bank.

How on Earth so ridiculous a troll ever stumbled upon something so grand is a cosmic mystery!

[Ignacio · Rating 2 out of 5]

Una vez cometí el error de leer este libro suponiéndolo una buena introducción al anarquismo. ¿Qué es la propiedad? es, en efecto, uno de los trabajos fundacionales de esta corriente filosófico-política, pero no un trabajo que resulte accesible para el lego. Proudhon hace un análisis jurídico-filosófico, contrasta diversas fuentes antiguas y contemporáneas (el libro es de 1840), y en algún momento enuncia la archiconocida conclusión, mucho más famosa que sus argumentos, de que “la propiedad es un robo”, y que no deja de ser paradójica, ya que la noción de robo presupone a la de propiedad. El razonamiento del autor, sin embargo, es mucho más complejo y barroco, pero no estoy seguro de que valga la pena explorarlo más que por un mero interés histórico.

[sadeleuze · Rating 5 out of 5]

Proudhon (1809-1865) is an author often referred to as the father of anarchism.

Let's put this book in its context. Proudhon, with a very pragmatic approach, wants to attack the best-known theories of property of his time, in order to criticize their content. In short, these theories postulated the right to property as "natural", recalling the tradition of "natural rights" proper to Enlightenment thought, as with Locke and Rousseau. To justify this natural right to property, the jurists of the time gave two main arguments:

- the first occupation, i.e. that a property belongs to its first occupant)

- exploitation, i.e. that a piece of land belongs to someone because he exploits it (very practical argument for colonization...)

But let's go back to the title of the book itself. What really is property?

For Proudhon, property has first of all a legal meaning; it is based on the definition given by Roman law that is, the right to use and abuse. It is an absolute right over a thing.

The absolute right over a thing constitutes a domain, an aspect inherent to property, which is inseparable from it

Proudhon posits on the one hand

- possession, i.e. the right to use and benefit from the fruit of the thing

on the other hand

- the domain, the absolute right, the determining component of property

Possession exists in fact, property exists in law.

For example, one can be a tenant (possessor), a lessor (landlord), or both at the same time (owner occupier). If the owner of a dwelling can let it deteriorate or transform it into something else, this is not the case for the tenant, whose possession does not authorize abuse. Nevertheless, the possession of the dwelling by the tenant guarantees him the sole use of it, even if he does not own it; it is, de facto, his home and that of no other person. The landlord, on the other hand, uses the dwelling only in law. It is understandable that Proudhon is against abuse, but not against usufruct. He therefore intends to abolish property by removing the right of abuse, leaving only possession.

His condemnation of the abuse inherent in property rests essentially on a social basis. He attacks first and foremost the cause of social evil, that is, pauperism. He attributes the cause to a misunderstanding of equity and equality, for him Justice, the foundation of any social order.

For him, it is not a question at this stage of his reasoning of distributing property more equally; by its very nature, property would sooner or later become concentrated in a few hands again.

The reason for this lies in a particular form of abuse: the right of bargain.

Proudhon understands value to be the product of labor. Thus, an income due to an owner in their sole capacity as owner is idle; it comes from someone else's labor. It is a bargain, a theft, since every worker is entitled to the full product of his labor.

Ownership is therefore nothing more than a fictitious and abusive monopoly on the right to use a thing, which can then be given to others in exchange for a part of their labor, nothing more than the consecration of the right of the strongest. The bargain can take many names, depending on the situation: farm, rent, annuity, interest, profit... All are synonymous with one and the same thing: theft.

Proudhon thus considers that property should be defined as the right to profit from the labor of others. This abuse, combined with the ability to divide and alienate property, makes eventual equality impossible.

Possession, on the other hand, does not permit abuse in any form; it is based on the natural right of each man to occupy a space that is sufficient to provide a livelihood for himself and his family

Thus, possession is a right as much as a state of affairs; the sharing of the world necessary for equality forbids absolute right.

This equal sharing of the possession of the means of subsistence generates, moreover, the equality of wages. Each man, free and autonomous, having the means to provide for his needs and those of his family, the exchange can indeed only be equal, or it will not take place. Since the products of labor can only be exchanged for the products of labor, equal exchange generates equal wages. This is universal competition, understood as the absence of monopoly, that is, of a balance of power allowing unequal exchange, and which leads to free association between producers

Conclusion: for Proudhon, only occupation, work and natural law count, and therefore legitimize possession. Thus, the big owners, the churches and the State are entities that must be overthrown: "Property is theft". He advocates a mutualist system, where individuals exchange services and goods with each other.

[Michael Dorais · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although this book is an important historical work, I couldn't honestly rate it higher than OK, just because the style and presentation is wanting. At times he comes across as hasty and arrogant. But there are other times when he settles into a more well-paced and well-argued discussion. The best parts are in the middle. The benefit for those who read this book is in the questions he raises about property, not in the answers. One of the best ideas he presents regards the nature of the division of labor and the association with others that necessarily happens and how that should imply at least a sort of equality with regards to the benefit rather than the wide disparity that is often accepted as necessary under market capitalism. There are probably much better works out there that cover similar ground, but for those interested in the intellectual history of capitalism and its critics, anarchism, and socialism, this may be a worthwhile read.

[Kerem · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book overall. Proudhon argues passionately against property (note, NOT possession), from all different angles including economic, philosophical and ethical. He is very clear with structuring his ideas, talks no more or less than he needs to, and takes stance against a good number of other philosophers from all ages. He also gives a good overview of historical development of possession, property and events surrounding these (including revolutions). Strongly recommend it (though don't take that 'Easy Reading Series' on the cover of the book literally if you really want to enjoy it...)

[Fauré · Rating 4 out of 5]

“What is Property?” (1840) is a must-read for those in need of arguments for the abolition of private property. When reading this book, it is important to keep in mind that Proudhon is not exclusively dealing with modern bourgeois property as an economic category, but mostly with the juridico-philosophical concept of property – i.e. a notion that transcends epochs - as mainly exemplified by modern bourgeois property in the sense of the Napoleonic Code. That is not to say that he understands private property as a pre-existing eternal idea, but that the power of accumulation possessed by property is to be analyzed a posteriori as the cause of the downfall and death of the most recent societies. In other words, Proudhon understands all kinds of private property over time as sharing the same fundamental characteristic: being a form of wealth acquired by an idle individual through another’s labor. This leads Proudhon to reduce all sorts of profit, rent, interest, benefit, etc., to what he calls the unjustified “droit d’aubaine”, which he famously illustrates in the parable of the grenadiers (Ch. III §5). For Proudhon, it is only this undeserved “droit d’aubaine” that is theft. In his later “Theory of Property” (1865), he explicitly states that what should be strived for is liquidation of property as "property-theft”, and that only “property-liberty” should remain, i.e. property produced by one’s own labor that furnishes one with necessary basic security. The reason for this is to be found in his “General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century” (1851): “The people, even those who are Socialists, whatever they may say, want to be owners; and, if I may offer myself as a witness, I can say that, after ten years of careful examination, I find the feelings of the masses on this point stronger and more resistant than on any other question. I have succeeded in shaking their opinions, but have made no impression on their sentiments. And one thing is to be noted which shows how far, in the minds of the people, individual sovereignty is identified with collective sovereignty, that the more ground the principles of democracy have gained, the more I have seen the working classes, both in the city and country, interpret these principles favorably to individual ownership.” It goes without saying that this level-headed observation looks at first sight like a terrible blow for socialism. If socialism is to be built upon the negation of property, and if the masses – i.e. the peasants, since the working class as Marx understood it did not exist in France at that time – truly have such a deep-rooted “instinct of property”, then either socialism has no future, or property should exist one way or another. It is the latter thesis that he would develop in his subsequent works on property. Therefore, I’d recommend to read them too.

“What is Property?” suffers from many weaknesses that already have been mentioned by other reviewers.

Curiously, Proudhon coined the term “scientific socialism” and introduced the notion of surplus value, which Engels thought to be Marx’s discovery, 27 years before Capital.

[Nora · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Así, el mal moral, o sea, en la cuestión que tratamos, el desorden de la sociedad se explica naturalmente por nuestra facultad de reflexión. El pauperismo, los crímenes, las revoluciones, las guerras han tenido por madre la desigualdad de condiciones, que es hija de la propiedad, la cual nació del egoísmo, fue engendrada por el interés privado y desciende en línea recta de la autocracia de la razón."

[Juan Amiguet Vercher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very few times you find a book that describes the sources of current problems, so thoroughly described and analysed that is over a century old. This is one of them. Worth reading for anyone with an interest in the origins of the current economic crisis or a good example of anarchist thought.

[Rodrigo Cornejo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Proudhon hace una exposición del fundamento de la propiedad privada, para poner en firme argumentos a favor de la igualdad humana, de salarios, la justa remuneración para garantizar la vida y a favor de la posesión en vez de propiedad. Esta distinción (la legal entre posesión y propiedad) está al centro de casi toda su exposición. Procurando resolver preguntas económicas básicas como "¿cuántos clavos vale un zapato?" prefigura el concepto marxista de 'plusvalía'. Describe casi todo de manera clara incluso para quienes no tienen nociones formales de economía política y explica las rentas desde su nacimiento, explicando el albinagio feudal.

De corte utopista (véase Fourier y el falansterio), este escrito tiene bastante confianza en el avance infalible del progreso humano, que 180 años después y con varios retrocesos considerables a cuestas puede sonar algo extraño. El escrito es crítico específicamente con ese socialismo, pero por sus métodos, no por su búsqueda de justicia. Carga con las desilusiones de la Revolución Francesa también.

Para México, es especialmente relevante porque se relaciona con el nacimiento de La Social, organización socialista fundada por Plotino Rhodakanaty. Se dice que Rhodakanaty conoció a Proudhon y si bien eso es discutible (recomiendo la lectura de En los márgenes. Rhodakanaty en México para una imagen más completa) aunque el encuentro no haya sucedido, esas ideas eran las que flotaban en el aire en esos años de organización obrera en México. A final de cuentas, fue la corriente del falansterio con la que llegó la izquierda a nuestro país. Leer las polémicas del momento ayuda a redondear la visión de sus éxitos y fracasos pero también de sus ideas primordiales: la justicia para los pobres y los olvidados.

Durante todo el escrito, Proudhon polemiza con el economista francés más célebre de la época, Jean-Baptiste Say. Por ello, esta lectura es una manera no tan espinosa de iniciarse en cuestiones de economía política. Asoman en ella su cabeza los procesos de producción y reproducción del capital y las mercancías, junto con lo falaz de la divisibilidad de los bienes comunitarios dados, como la tierra. En general, Proudhon señala los subterfugios y las racionalizaciones de los economistas en su afán por explicar con "leyes" económicas lo que era una realidad social e histórica dependiente de atavismos. Aunque no profundiza mucho en ello, no duda en señalar que esa realidad y sus justificaciones venían del feudalismo y de concepciones incompletas del desarrollo económico posterior a la revolución industrial. En su estilo de apartar y desarmar los supuestos que están sintetizados en la propiedad privada está la más grande contribución de el escrito, que sería seguido de intentos mucho más ambiciosos de analizar la economía política, como el marxista.

También hace un buen trabajo explicando la interdependencia del hombre con el hombre y de ahí, concluye con varios postulados a favor de la igualdad absoluta. La explotación del hombre por el hombre como inaceptable es mencionada como antinatural. El final es algo confuso, porque dedica poco tiempo y muchas energías en atacar por igual las bases de la "comunidad como institución despótica" (!) pero sería ingenuo hoy día sorprenderse de ello en en un texto anarquista. Es un texto viejo pero alcanza cuestiones contemporáneas que se rehúsan a irse, como la eterna justificación de la desigualdad de salarios por el "mérito y el talento" entre otras falacias postmodernas (de rancio origen) que justifican la pobreza y la desigualdad.

Prodhon polemizó con Marx por las consecuencias políticas de la doctrina del anarquismo y sus lecturas algo difusas acerca de los métodos de toma de los medios de producción. Sin haber leído esas polémicas puedo decir que no encuentro mucha incompatibilidad entre los postulados de igualdad y obreristas de ambos. Espero saldar esa deuda pronto con la lectura de Miseria de la Filosofía. La diferencia de análisis económico no queda tan clara pero está claro que el mutualismo y las implicaciones de acometer la revolución sin pensar que una libre federación de individuos sería atacada y aniquilada si no encontraba medios para defenderse y disolver gradualmente el Estado capitalista, seguramente es la grieta más grande entre ambos teóricos. Este último punto es objeto de una interesante charla entre un disminuido y anciano Kropotkin y Lenin. En resumen, este libro es una buena introducción para comenzar a leer la historia de la organización social humana desde sus fundamentos económicos.

[Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Admittedly, I skipped a bit of this. I didn't read his 10 axioms on property being impossible because it seemed, frankly, stupid. I also skipped the second memoir because it wasn't split into sections and on my brief skim it didn't seem especially novel or important.

My main takeaways from Proudhon are as follows:

1. Property, inherently, opposes equality
2. Statist communism is no solution to the conundrum that arises as a result of (1) because it enslaves the talented by forcing them to work for the untalented - "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"

3. The solution to the two-fold problem posed by (1) and (2) is anarcho-communism, it combines the desirable elements of communism with the desirable elements of capitalism (or property-holding)

For Proudhon, a genuine solution must preserve individuality and equality. Both capitalism and communism fail in this regard because they only preserve one or the other. Thus, the only solution is to attempt to amalgamate the two into a synthesis, anarcho-communism. In anarcho-communism, individuals are not forced to produce for the worse-off, but choose to do so out of recognition of the obligations arising from their superior natural endowment. This preserves their freedom. Since the worse-off nature of the untalented is offset by the extra production by the talented, this also solves the issue of inequality that arose in capitalism - the excess is repurposed to re-levelling equality, without levelling down.

The main issue, as I view it, is that anarcho-communism is utopian. It seems, to me, unlikely that given the lack of a state apparatus, that individuals could be relied upon to produce for others in the ways that are necessary to preserve equality. This claim becomes increasingly less plausible the larger a given society gets. Perhaps within immediate family it is especially plausible, within extended family mostly plausible, within a community somewhat-plausible, and in anything largely, exceedingly implausible. So, unless we are expected to live in small-scale societies, which comes with its own issues (a smaller talent pool, lack of access to certain desired resources), Proudhon's solution is no solution at all.

Instead, what we ought to take away from Proudhon is not his positive solutions, but his critical analyses of various arguments for original appropriation. Proudhon does an excellent job examining and exploring various answers to the question of what justifies not the use of nature's endowments, but the appropriation, or ownership of it. Proudhon does so excellently and writes in sparkling and beautiful prose so even when his arguments may not seem plausible, it remains a pleasure to read.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Property is theft” is one of those literary sentences that gets stuck in your head as if someone permanently burned it into your gray matter with a branding iron. What Is Property? is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s attempt at explaining what it means. Understanding his argument is certainly an intellectual challenge.

First Proudhon explains how he defines “property”. This is not as easy as it may seem since he does not follow the common understanding of “property” in terms of possession and ownership of something, most often an object, money, real estate, or intellectual property. On one hand, he defines it as synonymous with a concept like “attribute” or “characteristic”. The properties of the human body include a head, a torso, limbs, organs and everything else an average human being is composed of. He extends this definition to include objects that a human owns, possesses, or uses. Humans are users of tools so ownership of tools is perfectly alright in Proudhon’s mind. These two kinds of property are acceptable to him. The property he objects to is a landlord’s or businessman’s appropriation of goods produced by laborers in exchange for money. The semantic root of “property” and “appropriation” are philologically linked so that “appropriate” would mean “to take property away from someone”. This type of business transaction is what Proudhon rants against when he says “property is theft”.

The reasoning behind this notion can be tricky and confusing. This is probably because Proudhon had not followed his own chain of logic to its end. It goes something like this: one laborer extracts raw materials from the Earth, another laborer forges them into tools, and those tools get used to do farm work. Each laborer along the chain adds something of value to the crops that are the final product. If we were to calculate a value for each step in the process based on time and effort spent in work we could conclude that each vegetable or piece of fruit is worth x amount of money when the proprietor comes to collect his goods. He buys the food in bulk which means that he pays less per item than the sum of the cost of labor put into its production. Since “labor” is a property of a laborer, each laborer in the chain of production owns a portion of all the crops that are later sold. So when a tenant farmer receives payment for his produce, the property of each laborer is being appropriated by the proprietor against their will. Therefore, property is theft and the proprietor is a criminal. After following Proudhon’s reasoning, it makes sense. Well at least it does for about twenty or thirty seconds. The if you start to think about it in detail, the whole theory falls apart. This is as close as he comes to constructing a logically coherent argument.

The following section is an explication of the concept “property is impossible”. Proudhon sets the bar higher here and some of his arguments in this part are smart, a little more clear and a littlre more clever. One of his strongest points is that a piece of farmland exists in time and space. The farm itself may be sentient but the land it is on exists eternally. Furthermore, space and time are physical dimensions, kind of like vessels that are filled with things like farms, farmers, and crops. The landlord holds a lease giving the time of purchase and the boundaries of the land tract he owns but the lease does not state that he owns the time and space in which the land tract exists. That is because it is impossible for any human to own the abstract dimensions of time and space just as it is impossible for a finite being to own something that exists infinitely like a section of Earth. Therefore, property is impossible. It is like saying a wagon is made out of wood and the wood is made out of molecules which are made out of atoms that are made out of subatomic particles. No one can actually own subatomic particles so that means the wagon can not be owned. Now try stealing a car and using that argument as a defense in court; you would probably not be found innocent but you might end up getting locked in a hospital for the criminally insane rather than the federal penitentiary. It is an interesting concept but too far from the real world to be of much value. It might make an interesting topic of discussion in a law class though.

The third and final section is a rant. Proudhon derails his narrative fequently, starting with an etymological examination of the word “theft” which shifts into a summary of Hegel, followed by some religious sermonizing, a declaration of anarchism as the only logical form of governing, and it all ends with a rather bizarre and hysterical statement that the idea of property being theft will wipe out the older ways of life and usher in a new utopian paradise of freedom, justice, and equality for all. Despite Proudhon’s inability to stay on topic, this section contains some of the clearest and most well written thoughts in the book.

What Is Property? is a strange book. Even the most fanatical anarchists would concede that the logic has a few shortcomings. One obvious flaw is that the statements “property is theft” and “property s impossible” are mutually exclusive concepts; you obviously can not steal something that doesn’t exist. At best Proudhon will be remembered as a minor footnote in history which is certainly more than I can say for myself or most of you who are reading this, by the way. Despite his rudimentary thinking, Proudhon was one of the first theorists of anarchism and his ideas had a strong influence on Karl Marx who lifted the ideas of collective ownership and the elimination of the bourgeoisie class directly from his thinking. Marx and Proudhon were actually friends until the two had a falling out and died as enemies.

Even if Proudhon’s thinking is confused and underdeveloped, knowing something about his life puts it into a clearer perspective. Proudhon grew up in a family of tenant farmers. He saw first hand how the people he knew struggled with the hardest physical labor and lived in extreme poverty while the landlord paid them pennies so he could sell their crops and make a fortune doing little more than signing receipts and lending money at interest. Proudhon was good at reading, got accepted at a college and saw the French Revolution come and go, leaving the poor farmers poor and the aristocrats rich. He saw that the replacement with monarchy by parliament left the general populace just as oppressed as ever. He desperately wanted to transform society so the farm laborers would have their fair share in life. What Is Property? Can be seen as an attack on the economic and political injustice of the world. Despite its naivite and limited scope, it is a sincere fight in favor of the common people who deserve more than what they get. Proudhon had no chance of winning this battle but he was determined to keep up the attack until the end. There is something admirable and noble about his attitude.

So is property theft? Proudhon does not make a convincing case but in failing to prove his point he raises a lot of questions about society and morality that are legitimate and worth contemplating. The statement “Property is theft” is like William S. Burroughs claim that “language is a virus”. It is one sentence that has become detached from its original context to fly freely through the ethers of abstract thought to this day, a power-chord riffing through the symphonies of intellectual debate. It is a mind-blowing thought that survives long past any other ideas put forth by Proudhon.

https://grimhistory.blogspot.com/

[Derek Kreider · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was rough as an audio book because of the older language and elevated ideas. I had to go back a number of times, and even then, it would have been easier to have it in front of me.

I don’t know that everything argued here works. Some is a bit convoluted. However, there’s a whole lot of sense, for sure. He does what good anarchists tend to do, which is get at presuppositions and unmask them. I’m thinking of Graeber’s “Debt” as a great example of this.

I especially liked the look at Roman society and property and how they waged wars to appease appetites and the plebes. It’s a picture of empire still today.

I also appreciated how the author identified the problems in both capitalist and communist thinking, offering a third way.

[Petra]

For research so I'm going to leave it unrated. Proudhon was actually the first man to call himself anarchist and this work is Proudhon's way of explaining that property is the root to injustice and inequality. I found most of it interesting at least but I have to admit that I struggled with the complex language and the translation at first.

[Samuel]

Es un libro que me ha resultado difícil de leer, como en general todas las aproximaciones que hago a la filosofía.
En cualquier caso, me parece interesante su idea de que sino hay una igualdad absoluta no puede haber libertad, o como la propiedad envilece a los hombres y conduce al abuso y el conflicto.
Me parece un libro bueno para comprender algunas cuestiones del anarquismo y liberarse de algunos prejuicios como que esta ideología invita al caos.
No obstante, si te embarcas a leerlo es algo complejo.

[Mickey Dubs · Rating 3 out of 5]

omg no proudhon dont take my toothbrush no its mine :(

[Theo Lockett · Rating 4 out of 5]

In his 1840 book What is Property?, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) transformatively asserts that “Property is Theft!” and was the first to declare “I am an Anarchist”, placing himself among the great socialist thinkers of the nineteenth century. This former statement is seemingly presented paradoxically as property is also freedom. This paradox is deconstructed, however, as Proudhon answers his titular question by defining property as ‘the sum of its abuses’, derived from a proprietor's perceived absolute right over a thing. This review will first summarise the central ideas of ‘What is Property?’, before setting it within the contemporary field of 19th century socialist ideas, and commenting on its legacy regarding anarchist and socialist thought.

Proudhon begins by presenting an attempt to find the origins of property as it is presented in Roman Law and the Declaration of Rights; an inviolable natural right. Taking a comparative approach, he contrasts the perceived right to property with other infallible natural rights of liberty, life, and equality before the law. He asserts that while “liberty is the original condition of man”, the same is not true of property. Liberty cannot be bought or sold, but property is not absolute in the same way. To most citizens, it only exists as a potentiality and where it does it is subject to modifications by law and government in the form of taxation and redistribution. Proudhon postulates that if possessions were one’s own, no one else may claim them.

The book’s argument is propelled by Proudhon’s central theme of Justice; a social idea behind any law perceived to be moral. Proudhon takes occupation and labour as commonly accepted philosophical justifications for property and attempts to discredit them, arguing that both only justify possession. Firstly, he writes that with the right of occupation from “physical possession” there is an assumption the first occupier is the proprietor. Proudhon here convincingly argues that occupation is, however, simply toleration, requiring the mutual consent of others since the right to occupy is equal to all. In this argument, Proudhon uses Cicero’s theatre analogy: that the Earth is common to all, with an equal right to one’s own space. Here, Proudhon’s paradox of property comes to the fore. Since all are equally entitled to occupy an area to live and material to work, property is prevented because all have an equal share that varies in line with population. We are, therefore, temporary holders, supervised by society, not proprietors. Secondly, Proudhon criticises the idea that value added from labour is a justified origin of property. While labour gives the right of possession, it does not give the right to the means of production. Here, he uses the example of a fisherman, who would not own a river because he fishes, so by the same logic, a farmer should not own a field because they till it. Furthermore, there is no absolute right to the products an individual makes because most value is added socially since individuals cannot live without the products received from society at large. Proudhon posits, therefore, that the most value-adding labour is given by the rest of society who also have an equal right to the parts of a product that is their labour. This reinforces the idea that possession is valid, but property is not since it would be unjust to exploit the labour of others without providing fair compensation. As George Woodcock writes, Proudhon argues that ‘property is incompatible with justice, because in practice it represents the exclusion of the worker from his equal rights to enjoy the fruits of society’ (Woodcock, 1995).

Proudhon lays out the field of anarchist philosophy in this book, speaking to socialist thought of the nineteenth century. Both explicitly and explicitly, the idea of a mutually free society, unity through association, and of possession over property are formulated in this text. Social anarchism and libertarianism are convincingly introduced; existing without the violent connotations that would later be attached to them. The ideal society is a contractual one where people are free to arrange their own relations on conditions of justice. These anarchist ideas are inherently socialist because if occupation is toleration, and such toleration is mutual, possessions must also be equal. Robert Tomes notes Proudhon to therefore be one of the greatest influences on French socialism, as well as being the edifice of nineteenth century anarchist theory (McKay, 2010). Despite this, Proudhon’s vision of socio-economic mutualism was not a term of his own invention. This socialist idea was already being bolstered by the Lyon worker’s organisations in the 1830s who were self-described ‘mutuelliste’ (Vincent, 1984 :164). Proudhon's vision of a mutualist system impacts his ideas of credit and is closely tied to his broader ideas about social organisation and economic justice. He believes that a just and equitable society requires a system of economic exchange that is based on cooperation and mutual aid, rather than exploitation and accumulation. By emphasising the importance of credit and proposing a system of mutualist banking, Proudhon offers a vision of economic organisation that is fundamentally different from the capitalist system that he criticises.

Proudhon’s seminal text became the heart of the nexus of anarchist thought and continues to be the case today. His ideal society was a contractual one where individuals are free to arrange their own relations on conditions of mutual consent, paving the way for the development of anarchist decentralisation and federalism in Europe. Mikahil Bakunin was largely inspired by the work of Proudhon and proposed to replace the state with a system of decentralised communes and could work with one another through free federations (Eckhardt, 2022). His thought still influences Social federal politics of the European Union and influences liberal Schengen policy.

The dominance of Communism throughout the 20th century due to the rise of the USSR meant that the social anarchism of Proudhon and subsequent thinkers was lost largely until 1991 and the early 21st century. Despite this, his ideas of mutualism and cooperative society have survived to this day, proving that they are not just Utopian. For example, the Co-Op retail brand founded in 1844 survives to this day and the UK Co-operative Party currently has 26 elected members in the House of Commons. Although Proudhon can be critiqued for his obsession with absolute individual liberty, his emphasis on cooperation envisions a society that is both practical and sustainable, departing from the competitive ethos that characterised capitalist society (McKay, 2010).

His book shows property not to be a natural right, but rather a social convention. Yet, while his critique of property is thorough, there is little analysis of capitalism and the economic system that emerges alongside. As well as this, Proudhon’s bold writing style can be misleading at first glance. By stating ‘property is theft’, he is not denouncing personal possessions, but rather those who exploit the labour of others. Usery, rent and waged labour is immoral if renters are forced into being so due to having no material of their own to work with (Woodcock, 1995).

All this has influenced modern anarchist thought. Proudhon's emphasis on individual liberty and autonomy has had a significant impact, with many contemporary anarchists believing that individual freedom must be absolute and that any form of authority or hierarchy is inherently oppressive (Woodcock, 1996). It is this aspect that has been appropriated by modern Libertarians, who use their individual right to flourish as a basis for their far-right capitalist ideas. Despite this, Libertarians as they existed were social anarchists who believed in Proudhon’s mutual, contractual form of society.

Overall, this work by Proudhon made him one of the most important figures of socialist and radical thought. His critique of private property is relevant today as inequality within Europe and the Global North continues to grow and socialist parties in Germany and the UK gain electoral traction (Hopper, 2012). His argument is convincingly nuanced in the distinction between property and possession - property is theft, but mutual toleration of possession is freedom for all. While the book has a limited analysis of capitalist systems and its focus on property fails to account for the multiple dimensions of capitalist exploitation, the book remains important to the discussion of property rights and the nature of social organisation.

[Paul B. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Here's a little secret: We don't actually find out what Proudhon means by property until page 118 of this translation, where it says, "Property is the right of increase [aubane] claimed by the proprietor over anything he has marked as his own." We can think of property as a bundle of distinct rights including 1) the right to occupy (as a house or plot of land); 2) the right to use; 3) the right to exclude others; 4) the right to transfer other rights by sale or gift; and 5) the right to profit from use or transfer. Note that although I retain rights 1 through 4 over my house, and can profit from selling it, I live in a residential zoned neighborhood, and cannot derive profit by using it to run certain types of business.

When Proudhon says "Property is theft," he is actually objecting to certain versions of the right to profit, and not to the other elements of typical property rights.

Personally, I found the last chapter to be the most interesting one. Here, Proudhon develops a naturalistic account of human psychology that is continuous with what we observe among other vertebrate species. Much of Proudhon's earlier arguments are couched within the assumptions of classical economic theory. Classical theorists searched for the mojo that both creates value and serves as the criterion for fair exchange. There were many candidates, and Proudhon reviews several of them: possession, labor, soil fertility... His point is that none of them justify a proprietor's right to profit from use. But it's hard to square any of these arguments with contemporary economics because economists gave up the search for mojo sometime in the last half of the 19th century and developed a theory of exchange relations based on the facts of scarcity and demand. Most don't claim this is morally justified, only that it explains how markets work.

You would have to have a certain taste for the history of ideas to enjoy reading this book, but I have it, and I did. My two star rating reflects my judgment that readers will have a hard time making sense of the book if they don't have some prior familiarity with the history of economic thought.

[Zoë Birss · Rating 3 out of 5]

Proudhon's groundbreaking work laid a foundation for anarchist theory as it is practiced today. The central belief that property, that which ought to be held in common for common good yet is held by an individual for personal profit, is theft, is necessary for a truly equal and just society. This text formed a first step taken further in the writings of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others anarchist theorists who refer to this book explicitly in their later writing.

Proudhon's arguments are many, and are convincing, to varying degrees. Many details of the book are weighted differently in importance and impact now than they would have been at the time the book was published. Like many old political texts, practical details do not all apply as they would have at the time. Some predictions are woefully incomplete. And large portions of the book deal with arguments against Proudhon's contemporaries, much of which may be lost on the modern reader.

So, for a book as very long as this one, though important, I would not necessarily recommend it to everyone or anyone interested in its concepts. Voracious readers and students of anarchism will find this book fascinating and important. For the on-the-ground resistance, a good understanding of its contents is more than sufficient, and this can be found more clearly and concisely elsewhere.

I recommend Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin before this book. Much of the best of this book is contained in it.

What is Property? is an important book. I'm glad I read it. I'm glad to see clearly the impact it still has today. That impact, and continuing action, is far more valuable than checking off a list that this book has been read. Solidarity.

☠

Kobo Ebook
Translated by Benjamin R. Tucker (I think - the Ebook doesn't name the translator)

Three Stars

January 1-18, 2018

☠

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an absolutely essential treatise to understanding the problems we now face here in the U.S. and everywhere else in the world.

Tracing back through its historical origins, Proudhon finds that there really is little attempt by intellectuals to do much other than say "Yeah property is okay, let's move on." He compares an incredible number of definitions, explanations, defenses and systematically arrives at the conclusion that land and natural resource cannot be owned exclusively by individuals without contradicting other rights. i.e. I can buy a piece of land, tell no one else they can use it, and then pass it down after my death to a corporation. The strict and exclusive ownership of uncreated resource means that I can tell you that you have a right to live, and then keep you from being able to eat. If you understand this then everything else falls into place.

The recurring debate over taxation, public funding, and wealth redistribution are symptoms of this contradiction. More importantly though - there is no resolution in our current system. So long as the current system of property exists, this problem will never go away. We will be forced to periodically redistribute wealth, because the system itself creates these unnatural inequalities.

[Frederick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the very first thing I've read by Proudhon so I imagine I have a lot to learn. Proudhon was against the right to own property as the origin of evil on earth. You didn’t invent the earth. You can’t own it. You can only own something you create. However, he also condemns communism as a tyranny over mankind. He says that while property is the tyranny of the strong over the weak communism is so of the weak over the strong. He claims that it is no solution to the problem. I believe that his main points are that property is the cause of inequality and that profit is nothing more than usury. He doesn’t seem to offer any realistic alternatives. He’s like a doctor who diagnoses that you have an illness, a serious illness, and then bids you good-day. I don’t get it. I'm sure a second reading of this would help but I want to move on to Bakunin.

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

Proudhon had the ability of combining the most brilliant insight with the most arrogant, idiosyncratic, and forceful stupidity. He synthesizes a lot of questions which Marx later made his own, he critiques the heart of bourgeois institutions, originally in depth, only to give way to a completely arbitrary analysis in his last chapter. Ironically, Proudhon concludes his work much like Fourier, whom he criticizes so much (for being speculative, the irony!) throughout this work. Proudhon proudly invents scientific socialism with one hand and shits on it with his other. He’s infuriating only because he digs himself a deeper hole in what otherwise is a brilliant text. It’s not hard to see why Marx both originally loved, then hated him.

[Karol Ujueta Rojas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Todos los campesinos deberían tener conocimiento de lo que dice este libro.
This book changed my perception of what I usually take for normal and ordinary about being the owner of something. The entire book is about Proudhon explaining why being the owner of something is basically a crime, to cheat, to steal and he does it in an impressive and eloquent way. I never once got bored reading this book, his way of convincing the reader is impressive, no wonder this book caused such outrage for some and gave others hope. Proudhon is the first person ever to declare himself an anarchist and this book explains his motivations for "creating" this political label.

[Leonardo Rodríguez]

I read this book (one of the milestones of socialist French thought) when I was about 12. I realize now that I didn't understand more than a sentence, but it was all the same very influential in my political and social opinions. A school-mate used to call me The Anarchist. I felt strangely flattered about it.

[Andy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book contained great ideas. It is immediately apparent why Proudhon is considered the father of Anarchism.

That being said, the writing style and archaic diction made the book too difficult for me--a subpar reader--to make it all the way through. Maybe I'll attempt it another time, but related internet articles will satisfy my desire for mutualist theory at the moment.

[Ram · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rebeliious. Thumbing the nose in the face of the entire world. To stand up and question the very principles on which human society is sustained. Proudhon is a master at the art of awakening consciences sleeping in the lull of capitalistic music.