WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

112

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

>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (/ˈpruːdɒn/;[4] French: [pjɛʁʒozɛf pʁudɔ̃]; 15 January 1809 – 19 January 1865) was a French socialist,[5][6][7][8] politician, philosopher, economist and the founder of mutualist philosophy. He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist,[9][10] 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".[11] Proudhon became a member of the French Parliament after the Revolution of 1848, whereafter he referred to himself as a federalist.[12] Proudhon described the liberty he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property".[13] Some consider his mutualism to be part of individualist anarchism[14][15][16] while others regard it to be part of social anarchism.[17][18][19]

...

Racism and sexism

Stewart Edwards, the editor of the Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, remarks that "Proudhon's diaries (Carnets, ed. P. Haubtmann, Marcel Rivière, Paris 1960 to date) reveal that he had almost paranoid feelings of hatred against the Jews. In 1847, he considered publishing an article against the Jewish race, which he said he 'hated'. The proposed article would have "called for the expulsion of the Jews from France". It would have stated: "The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies; Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men who hate us."[126] Proudhon differentiated his antisemitism from that of the Middle Ages, presenting it as quasi-scientific: "What the peoples of the Middle Ages hated by instinct, I hate upon reflection and irrevocably."[127]

In an introduction to Proudhon's works titled Property Is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology, Iain McKay, author of An Anarchist FAQ, cautions readers by saying that "[t]his is not to say that Proudhon was without flaws, for he had many"[128][129] and adding the following note:

He was not consistently libertarian in his ideas, tactics and language. His personal bigotries are disgusting and few modern anarchists would tolerate them – Namely, racism and sexism. He made some bad decisions and occasionally ranted in his private notebooks (where the worst of his anti-Semitism was expressed). While he did place his defence of the patriarchal family at the core of his ideas, they are in direct contradiction to his own libertarian and egalitarian ideas. In terms of racism, he sometimes reflected the less-than-enlightened assumptions and prejudices of the nineteenth century. While this does appear in his public work, such outbursts are both rare and asides (usually an extremely infrequent passing anti-Semitic remark or caricature). In short, "racism was never the basis of Proudhon's political thinking" (Gemie, 200–1) and "anti-Semitism formed no part of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." (Robert Graham, "Introduction", General Idea of the Revolution, xxxvi) To quote Proudhon: "There will no longer be nationality, no longer fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they will mean only places of birth. Man, of whatever race or colour he may be, is an inhabitant of the universe; citizenship is everywhere an acquired right." (General Idea of the Revolution, 283)[130]

While racism was not overtly part of his political philosophy, Proudhon did express sexist beliefs as he held patriarchal views on women's nature and their proper role in the family and society at large. In his Carnets (Notebooks), unpublished until the 1960s, Proudhon maintained that a woman's choice was to be "courtesan or housekeeper". To a woman, a man is "a father, a chief, a master: above all, a master". His justification for patriarchy is men's greater physical strength and recommended that men use this greater strength to keep women in their place, saying that "[a] woman does not at all hate being used with violence, indeed even being violated". In her study of Gustave Courbet, who painted the portrait of Proudhon and His Children (1865), art historian Linda Nochlin points out that alongside his early articulations of anarchism Proudhon also wrote La Pornocratie ou les femmes dans les temps modernes, described as "the most consistent anti-feminist tract of its time, or perhaps, any other" and which "raises all the main issues about woman's position in society and her sexuality with a paranoid intensity unmatched in any other text".[131]

Proudhon's defenses of patriarchy did not go unchallenged in his lifetime and libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque attacked Proudhon's anti-feminism as a contradiction of anarchist principles. Déjacque directed Proudhon "either to 'speak out against man's exploitation of woman' or 'do not describe yourself as an anarchist'".[132]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon >>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (/ˈpruːdɒn/;[4] French: [pjɛʁʒozɛf pʁudɔ̃]; 15 January 1809 – 19 January 1865) was a French socialist,[5][6][7][8] politician, philosopher, economist and the founder of mutualist philosophy. He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist,[9][10] 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".[11] Proudhon became a member of the French Parliament after the Revolution of 1848, whereafter he referred to himself as a federalist.[12] Proudhon described the liberty he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property".[13] Some consider his mutualism to be part of individualist anarchism[14][15][16] while others regard it to be part of social anarchism.[17][18][19] ... Racism and sexism Stewart Edwards, the editor of the Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, remarks that "Proudhon's diaries (Carnets, ed. P. Haubtmann, Marcel Rivière, Paris 1960 to date) reveal that he had almost paranoid feelings of hatred against the Jews. In 1847, he considered publishing an article against the Jewish race, which he said he 'hated'. The proposed article would have "called for the expulsion of the Jews from France". It would have stated: "The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies; Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men who hate us."[126] Proudhon differentiated his antisemitism from that of the Middle Ages, presenting it as quasi-scientific: "What the peoples of the Middle Ages hated by instinct, I hate upon reflection and irrevocably."[127] In an introduction to Proudhon's works titled Property Is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology, Iain McKay, author of An Anarchist FAQ, cautions readers by saying that "[t]his is not to say that Proudhon was without flaws, for he had many"[128][129] and adding the following note: He was not consistently libertarian in his ideas, tactics and language. His personal bigotries are disgusting and few modern anarchists would tolerate them – Namely, racism and sexism. He made some bad decisions and occasionally ranted in his private notebooks (where the worst of his anti-Semitism was expressed). While he did place his defence of the patriarchal family at the core of his ideas, they are in direct contradiction to his own libertarian and egalitarian ideas. In terms of racism, he sometimes reflected the less-than-enlightened assumptions and prejudices of the nineteenth century. While this does appear in his public work, such outbursts are both rare and asides (usually an extremely infrequent passing anti-Semitic remark or caricature). In short, "racism was never the basis of Proudhon's political thinking" (Gemie, 200–1) and "anti-Semitism formed no part of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." (Robert Graham, "Introduction", General Idea of the Revolution, xxxvi) To quote Proudhon: "There will no longer be nationality, no longer fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they will mean only places of birth. Man, of whatever race or colour he may be, is an inhabitant of the universe; citizenship is everywhere an acquired right." (General Idea of the Revolution, 283)[130] While racism was not overtly part of his political philosophy, Proudhon did express sexist beliefs as he held patriarchal views on women's nature and their proper role in the family and society at large. In his Carnets (Notebooks), unpublished until the 1960s, Proudhon maintained that a woman's choice was to be "courtesan or housekeeper". To a woman, a man is "a father, a chief, a master: above all, a master". His justification for patriarchy is men's greater physical strength and recommended that men use this greater strength to keep women in their place, saying that "[a] woman does not at all hate being used with violence, indeed even being violated". In her study of Gustave Courbet, who painted the portrait of Proudhon and His Children (1865), art historian Linda Nochlin points out that alongside his early articulations of anarchism Proudhon also wrote La Pornocratie ou les femmes dans les temps modernes, described as "the most consistent anti-feminist tract of its time, or perhaps, any other" and which "raises all the main issues about woman's position in society and her sexuality with a paranoid intensity unmatched in any other text".[131] Proudhon's defenses of patriarchy did not go unchallenged in his lifetime and libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque attacked Proudhon's anti-feminism as a contradiction of anarchist principles. Déjacque directed Proudhon "either to 'speak out against man's exploitation of woman' or 'do not describe yourself as an anarchist'".[132]

(post is archived)

[–] 2 pts

I was an anarchist for quite a number of years. There are still some of the ideals of "old-school anarchism" that I think are good ideals. I absolutely detest what it has become in 2020 - the smelly dreadlocked low-life crusties, the identity politics, the Antifaggots, totally detached from what it once represented.

But things like worker's managing their own affairs, direct democracy, syndicates, etc, are all great ideas. I would be happy to live in an anarchist community (not anarchism of the 21st century), provided it was white and emphasised the importance of heritage, religion and family. But modern anarchism has been poisoned so much by Jewish liberalism it's impossible to ever see this happening. All anarchists care about today is letting in more migrants and making sure tranny faggots don't have their feelings hurt.

I know national-anarchism is a thing, and one day maybe it will be viable. I see anarchism (national or not) as something that could work in some small scale rural communities. But ultimately, at the end of the day, nations are real. They are an organic process and an undeniable manifestation of a communal spirit and history. The possibility for the abuse of state power will always exist so long as the state exists, but realistically, being able to organise and provide for millions of people who ARE bound by blood, language and heritage is something that can really only be done a nation-state. It's not really a surprise anarchism has never been more than a quick social experiment in Catalonia and Ukraine, before better organised forces destroyed them. Whereas fascism in it's quick existence swept across Europe.

Anyways, I think there are some valuable things one could learn from old school anarchism, and perhaps even certain ideals that could be implemented in a rejuvenated white society.

[–] 1 pt

I was something of an anarchist sympathizer 10+ years ago, but never completely sold on its effectiveness, was more of a libertarian. Ideally I think it would also be great, much like the original American Republic, but like all noble institutions becomes corrupted.

Now, though I never thought I'd come to this, keeping in mind Plato's thoughts on cycles of government, maybe a balkanized, NSDAP type ethno-state would be necessary to restore such a thing, but nothing is certain with any slippery slope.

Like all the good Teddy Roosevelt did, it set the stage further for Federal overstep. And like NS Germany we have no idea how it would've panned out for all the good it did.

It's early and I'm rambling though