Replying to Nobody

I've never heard of Proudhon but a quick google suggests he was more socialist than any anarchist I'm familiar with 🤔Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron... But then socialists/Marxists seem to be all about blindly holding onto contradictions to me.
Avatar
Low Information Voter 2y ago

Proudhon was born into a level of State-induced poverty neither I nor anyone reading this can comprehend. But as an entrepreneur, he built a successful publishing business, whilst being an outspoken critic of the suffocating bureaucracy of late-Bourbon France.

Proudhon was never a Communist of any sort, and was never an advocate of state control of anything. He did advocate voluntary member-benefit mutuals at one point, which I regard with grave suspicion.

Proudhon was an outspoken critic of the various top-down innovations in "property rights" in his era. Like Machiavelli, he was a master troll and fond of pithy clickbait overstatements of his more nuanced positions.

Anarcho-Communism is just regular Communism, but where Commissars are allowed to smoke weed :-p

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

d7
Nobody 2y ago

I think I read he's the guy who coined the phrase "property is theft"? That's why I'm suss on him.

Avatar
Low Information Voter 2y ago

He would be delighted to learn his clickbait is still working. His real position was far more nuanced.

d7
Nobody 2y ago

It's not really working... I read that and moved on 🤷🏽‍♀️

Avatar
Low Information Voter 2y ago

He wrote in French, and it translates poorly.

Benjamin Tucker and Kevin Amos Carson cover a lot of the same ground in English.

d7
Nobody 2y ago

I'm more a Rothbard, Spooner and Tolstoy kinda girl.

Avatar
Low Information Voter 2y ago

I like all of the above :-D

And I think their teachings are about 99% compatible in practice

d7
Nobody 2y ago

I feel like the very little I know of Proudhon is 100% at odds with Rothbard... 🤔

Avatar
Low Information Voter 2y ago

That's the remaining 1%. They would disagree vehemently on whether publicly traded corporations, Trusts, and attendant bureaucracy are stable, socially beneficial, and worthy of legal/societal standing and protection.

I'm with Proudhon there, but I don't think anyone should ban them. Just deny legal personhood to anyone who isn't a person and the problem will solve itself. Partnerships and maybe even member-benefit mutuals have more upside than downside, but these days we have self-executing contracts and DAO. There's no need to get the courts involved. And if you don't understand them, maybe stick to self-employment and common-law contracts.