Investigates excluded social theory. Link in bio to pdf of French Socialisms (1932) by Célestin Bouglé, in which I wrote the foreword and afterword for.
Here are Proudhon's notes on Marx's Poverty of Philosophy that were taken from the margins of his copy. Going to include them as a short appendix for Volume 2 of System of Economic Contradictions.
The economist John Maynard Keynes was apparently the first person to make a big deal about Isaac Newton's interest in magic. Keynes purchased Newton's neglected alchemy papers in the 1930s and argued that Newton was "the last magician" in terms of how he was approaching reality.
I think the anarchistic nature of classical socialist theory is one of the most important, yet neglected, aspects of their thought. Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Marx, and arguably even Comte, all understood government as a problematic institution for society.
"Socialism, far from being authoritarian... far from demanding a stronger organization of governmental powers, was, on the contrary... essentially anarchistic. We find the same attitude... in Fourier as in Saint-Simon, in Proudhon as in Fourier, in Marx as in Proudhon." -Durkheim
Our translation of Proudhon’s Sociology by Pierre Ansart (1967) comes out next week. I’m excited about it as it fills a gap in the literature in the English-speaking world in terms of an authoritative but succinct summary of Proudhon’s many works, which have been oddly neglected.
Coming soon: PROUDHON'S SOCIOLOGY! Available in English for the first time, Pierre Ansart's book (edited by
@MutualSociology
) introduces the thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and emphasizes how Proudhonian ideas remain relevant today. Preorder for 25% off:
@spencerbeswick
Just try to respect yourself and don’t let the market define your self-worth. I defended my dissertation a couple months ago. I’m finally coming out of my depression, which I realize I had since starting grad school in 2015, and striving to be self-sufficient without academia.
"The police, instituted for the defense of the proletariat, are directed entirely against the proletariat. The proletarian is driven out of the forests, rivers and mountains; he is forbidden even to cross the roads; soon he will know only the one that leads to prison." - Proudhon
Guillaume de Greef is another excluded anarchist sociologist. Like his colleague Hector Denis, he was a Belgian sociologist interested in the ideas of Proudhon and sociological positivism. Great new article on this basically unknown thinker by Jeff Shantz-
Most of Capital Vol 1 is a repackaging of Proudhon’s System of Economic Contradiction (namely they scaffold up economic categories starting with value to explain how capitalism functions). Consequently, nearly every critique in his Poverty of Philosophy can be applied to Capital.
Mutualism and sociology are kindred spirits. Both are virtually ignored in the public and both have an extremely important implications not yet widely understood. The internet is currently dusting them off.
@tenshi_anna
Im not sure what “police logic” is but wasn’t it Marx who emphasized the “abolition” of class. This would be like saying that Marxism is structurally Stalinist.
It seems lazy to treat anarchism as a monolith and make sweeping statements about it based on cherry-picked cases.
The thickest book I’ve every put together. Can’t believe that’s just half of Proudhon’s magnum opus. Thanks
@corvuseditions
for making your translations freely available.
Anarchist sociologists: work their entire lives to demonstrate some key social properties to other sociologists.
Other sociologists: takes literally no interest in their demonstrations or their life’s work since the “A” word is not acceptable in a reputable academic department.
Guillaume de Greef is another excluded anarchist sociologist. Like his colleague Hector Denis, he was a Belgian sociologist interested in the ideas of Proudhon and sociological positivism. Great new article on this basically unknown thinker by Jeff Shantz-
Arguably the most consistent finding in sociology has been the common disconnect between people’s stated beliefs and their actual behavior. The way people view themselves and the way they present themselves to others are distinct and it is important to take this into account.
@cafreiman
1880 was also capitalist though….
You would need to compare free time under capitalism with free time under feudalism to actually assess whether capitalism “gives us an enormous amount of free time.”
@anarchopac
“Progress” is arguably one of those dead 19th century terms as well. There is no unilinear movement towards anything in society. Instead there are a plurality of dynamics taking place, moving in all sorts of directions.
"May my communist friends forgive me! I would be less averse to their ideas if I were not irreversibly convinced... that communism, republicanism, and all social, political, and religious utopias... are the greatest obstacle that progress has yet to overcome.
While Marx and Proudhon were both asking very similar questions, they were coming to very different answers. This is further complicated by the fact that Marx incorporated several of Proudhon’s explanations about society into his work.
Happy pub day to Pierre Ansart’s first book translated into English- Proudhon’s Sociology.
Within academia, Pierre Ansart’s works have so far met a similar fate as his former mentor’s, the Russian sociologist Georges Gurvitch, in that they have been “excluded from the herd”.
Marxists, in their dogmatism around their interpretations of Marx's work, have obscured the fact that Proudhonian & Marxist class analysis actually resemble each other much more than they differ.
For ex., on the "petty bourgeois", the two theorists largely mirror each other.
Marxist theory applied to Marxism:
The public gives so much attention to Marx compared to other socialist theorists because Marxists came to power in the Russian empire, thereby they owned their means of production & eventually spread the ideology of Marxism across the planet.
"[Sociology] owes its birth not only to its official father - Auguste Comte - but also to his two great adversaries: Proudhon and Marx. These three founders of sociology were, each in their own way, continuing the work of their common master: Saint-Simon." Georges Gurvitch, 1946.
In sociology, Proudhon's most important contribution is his theory of collective force. Individuals working together in groups (& connecting to past groups) produce something greater than the sum of their parts. This theory is also notably the root of his theory of exploitation.
The first mention of "social science" in English seems to be written by Jeremy Bentham in 1812.
Source: K.M. Baker (1964): The early history of the term ‘social science’, Annals of Science, 20:3, 211-226.
The connection between Proudhon and Foucault that Prichard develops in the Intro to War & Peace is really interesting. I hadn’t encountered it before. I had always noticed similar themes in their work but for some reason assumed Foucault was unfamiliar with Proudhon.
I hate when people say something “is science”. Science is a process, not something fixed. Nearly everyone seems to validate their folk beliefs about society by thinking they are “based on science”.
There is a complete disconnect between society and the scientific community.
Marxists: It’s not a religion! We are free thinkers.
Also Marxists: Marx destroyed Proudhon. I’m aware that most of Proudhon’s many works have not been translated into English & that Marxists have barely engaged with him. Still, let’s just repeat what Marx said over and over.
I think what Proudhon’s misogyny & racism demonstrates is that, even for a guy obsessed with justice & mutual respect, bias & discrimination often run much deeper than we realize. Taken-for-granted assumptions about others are so deep-seated that people don’t even realize them.
Yea the left finally realized that building new mass political organizations does not work. Marx’s emphasis on political revolution instead of social revolution was always erroneous and is what set him apart from the rest of the socialist movement in his time.
The communist parties of the 20th century had many limitations, but they were significant and popular. Today the left forces have discarded the question of building new mass political organizations and rely on deleterious mechanisms of personalism and political reliability.
"[Socialism was] born at the same time as social science, and Saint-Simon was... the founder of both.... It is an important fact in the history of science and human morality that this simultaneous birth of the social sciences, on the one hand, and of socialism, on the other,
I hate how smug all academics are about Marx’s ideas over Proudhon’s. Yes, Marx eclipsed Proudhon in the 20th century. No, that doesn’t mean that Marx’s works are more relevant than Proudhon’s in philosophy/sociology/anthropology/etc. It’s literally just celebrity worship dogma.
@juliashiplett
There is a rebellious culture embedded within our education system. Teens embody this attitude. I think millennials are often still teens in the sense that we were never given the chance to “grow up” into economic security.
We still carry the resentment to the system within us.
I was under the impression that Hayek was against state intervention into the market? Seems like he promoted something akin to an universal basic income, which was notably first promoted by the Fourierist Joseph Charlier. Was a Hayek a closet socialist after all?
Just got my copy in the mail. Can’t wait to read it! Cheers!
@AKPressDistro
@DrAlexPrichard
I believe this is the first full-length English translation of one of Proudhon’s books in the last 99 years (the last one being Gen. Idea of the Revolution in 1923). Exciting stuff!
Currently reading the excellent ‘A History of Economic Doctrines’ by Charles Gide & Charles Rist- published in French in 1909 & translated into English in 1948. It discusses all the major schools of economic thought in the 18th & 19th centuries, including the socialist doctrines.
The sociologist C. Bouglé argued that no thinker made greater use of the premise that "the meeting of individuals generates an unique reality, something greater than and different to their mere sum", than Proudhon.
Here are the key features of Proudhon's approach to society:
The French Proudhonians tended to equate Proudhon’s theory of collective force/exploitation with Marx’s theory of surplus value. In contrast, the somehow even more neglected Anglo-Proudhonian tradition always stressed the difference between the two theories, like Seymour’s work.
"Here we have...Marx's theory of surplus value....borrowed from Proudhon(..). Marx could have said – he almost did say in his early works – that the concept of surplus value is a Proudhonian concept."
'Proudhon and Marx' is live now on Mutualism Co-op!
Two great articles on the history of anarchism in the US.
The first article is written by the recently deceased French sociologist Ronald Creagh, who may have been the only contemporary sociologist to take an interest in the American mutualist tradition.
Our translation of Célestin Bouglé's 1932 French Socialisms is now available for preorder!
I expect to be able to ship it out by July 2024. As of right now, preorders are only for shipments within the US, but this will likely expand in the near future.
Marx only became popular due to the interpretation given to his works by Engels. Marx’s writings, particularly Capital, were seen as cryptic & impenetrable to nearly everyone.
In other words, we read Marx today bc of Engels’ efforts, not bc Marx was some amazing/clear theorist.
I secretly hate talking about Proudhon to academics. They give you every excuse they can come up with for why academia has excluded Proudhon from serious study (and the French socialists more generally) except for acknowledging the obvious fact of the politicization of academia.
In my view, Proudhon was the greatest philosopher in the last two centuries, yet he has been almost completely ignored in the English-speaking world. Unfortunately for Proudhon, the English-speaking world dominates the conversation in philosophy, just like it dominates the globe.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Martin Luther King Jr. were born on this day. Notably, Proudhon was indirectly an important influence on King:
Proudhon was a major influence on Tolstoy. Tolstoy was a major influence on Gandhi. Gandhi was a major influence on Martin Luther King Jr.
Academia is too statist. The relationship between academia and the state grew considerably over the 20th century. Unsurprisingly, anti-statist theories (which includes the entirety of non-Jacobin French socialism and anarchism) have found little resonance within the ivory towers.
@MutualSociology
What, that academia is too right-wing? I don't think that makes a lot of sense. But that many left-wing academics, who you might expect to be interested in him, are influenced by Marxism and so prejudiced against him, that's a very plausible story.
Academics apparently never ask themselves: why do we obsessively read Marx and not his rival Proudhon? They just assume that since their peers read Marx, he must be more insightful than Proudhon. The rise of the Soviet Union seems to be assumed away as proof of Marx’s insight.
Someone uploaded "Red, Black and Objective: Science, Sociology, and Anarchism" by Sal Restivo (2011) to The Anarchist Library!
Besides Gurvitch, whom Resitvo cites, Restivo is at the forefront of the connection between sociology and anarchist thought.
Proudhon’s unpublished Principles of the Philosophy of Progress, written between 1850-1855, really is the nuts and bolts of his sociology. Nowhere else is he so explicit about his understanding of group dynamics and society, more generally. -
Wow, my forthcoming book got a big endorsement by someone that I wasn’t expecting to appreciate it. This is the second great endorsement that it’s received. I’m looking forward to publishing it in early 2024!
It’s Good Friday. In Proudhon’s interpretation of the story, Jesus passed out while on the cross & his followers assumed he died. When he awoke from his drug-induced slumber, they convinced him that he died & was resurrected. Jesus went onto to preach for several more decades.
Other anarchist thinkers interested in sociological positivism: Proudhon (Comte), Bakunin (Comte), Kropotkin (Spencer), Stephen P. Andrews (Comte), Dyer Lum (Spencer).
David Graeber could arguably even be included in this list due to his interest in the positivist Marcel Mauss.
Guillaume de Greef is another excluded anarchist sociologist. Like his colleague Hector Denis, he was a Belgian sociologist interested in the ideas of Proudhon and sociological positivism. Great new article on this basically unknown thinker by Jeff Shantz-
Proudhon’s typology of the stages of industrialism was pretty spot on:
- Industrial anarchy
- Industrial feudalism
- Industrial empire
- Industrial democracy
At the time of writing (1850s), he argued that industrialism was moving from industrial feudalism to industrial empire.
Edward Castleton, the current president of the Societe Proudhon, dropped another gem. Really demonstrates that the revival of Proudhonian studies is in full force. I’ve never come across a better paper examining Proudhon and German philosophy. Brilliant-
Marxists: No, that’s not what Marx thought. Look at this quote from Marx’s unpublished notes that contradicts your argument.
Also Marxists: Yes, that’s what Proudhon thought. No, I can’t point to anything from Proudhon’s works that actually backs up anything I’m arguing.
I posted the pdf of "French Socialisms" for free on Lulu. It was already on my ResearchGate page but here is an alternative link to download it that doesn't include a weird ResearchGate title page -
As the Russian exile Georges Gurvitch described, Proudhonian ideas were in the air during the Russian Revolution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks used Proudhonian rhetoric to elevate themselves into positions of influence only later to turn on the anarchists.
@AnarkYouTube
Ancaps come out of Anglo tradition of defining freedom as based on individual consent, which is why they have so many pedophiles in their ranks.
Anarchism comes out of French tradition of defining freedom as based on non-domination, which goes much further than voluntarism.
I don’t think sociologists realize how much the Cold War impacted their field. In my view, late 19th & early 20th century sociology was the high point for theory.
The whole “Functionalist versus Marxist” paradigm was really just politics seeping into and distorting the field.
The most important figure in our book (also, the only figure in the book).
Despite the sheer neglect of Saint-Simonism, Fourierism, and Proudhonism among academics, as well as among the public, there ideologies gave rise to some of the most important social movements of today.
French socialism in general has been neglected.
The key reasons for Proudhon’s neglect: 1) France had a weak university system until the 20th century (unlike Germany), 2) Proudhon was too radical for the liberals (Spencer and Mill both were dismissive w/out reading), 3) Marx!
Starting a new project on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who was a *prolific* writer, to say the least. And yet, the political theory 2ndary lit is so thin, & almost no one would put Proudhon anywhere near the "canon" of political theory. Any thoughts about why?
Growing up Unitarian Universalist, I regularly heard the parable of the blind and the elephant. I still find value in it. No individual/group is able to see the whole picture by themselves. It’s only through the reciprocity of perspectives that we arrive at the whole picture.
My top 4 unjustly neglected social theorists:
1) The French socialists (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon)
2) The Russian subjective school (Lavrov, Mikhalovsky, Kareyev)
3) Gurvitchean sociology (Gurvitch & his disciples)
4) Contemporary (basically American) experimental sociology
I still plan to write an introduction for this (and edit it to make it look nice) but I figured I'd go ahead and share it anyway as a resource for those interested. Here is a link to a pdf of "Readings in Mutualist Sociology" for the first time -
@MattPolProf
Not to mention he raised a pretty kick ass daughter. I haven’t read much of John Rawls but I really enjoy and appreciate Anne Rawls’ work in sociology.
Austrian economists: Group processes don’t exist. Only individuals are real and they can’t be studied in any scientific manner.
Also Austrian economists: Stigmergic processes exist. Individuals spontaneously form real social structures that can be studied in a scientific manner.
Mutualists: Arguably above all, Proudhon emphasized social realism, pluralism, and group processes. His works have been oddly neglected.
Ancoms: No. Proudhon above all emphasized coops, the market, labor notes, & anti-feminism. Admittedly, I haven't read anything by him though.
CMV: There is no group of social theorists more neglected than the Proudhonians. From classical sociologists like Hector Denis, Guillaume De Greef, Célestin Bouglé to more modern sociologists like Georges Gurvitch, Andrea Caffi, Pierre Ansart, Georges Balandier, Jean Duvignaud…
@SimmsMelanie
@NC_Renic
Bourdieu's analogy of a field I think captures it best. Academia is like most games in that it requires both skill and luck. There are little groups in the field all competing for attention. And, at the end of the day, there are winners and losers.
Tl;dr: Marx’s metamorphosis revolved around the now obscure thinker Karl Grün, who was essentially Karl Marx’s doppelgänger. The same age, born in the Rhineland, studied at the U of Berlin, interested in Young Hegelianism, expelled from Germany & well-read in French socialism.
Philosophers to Marxists: No no no, that’s not what Marx said. See his unpublished notes.
Philosophers to Positivists: Yes that is what Comte said. I haven’t read any of his works but his followers clearly understood science much better than the guy who systematized all of them.
"A just contract is not simply any contract that is freely consented to, that is, without explicit coercion; it is a contract by which things and services are exchanged at the true and normal value, in short, at the just value." - Emile Durkheim
Another “renowned” academic book that casually skips over the French socialists as though they had no important insights.
I do appreciate the inclusion of the Physiocrats and Pareto. Past that, it appears to follow the same dogmatic narrative of Smith-> Ricardo-> Marx.
Turning out to be a really interesting book. Louis Dumont (1983) builds on the Durkheimians, particularly Mauss and Bouglé, in terms of their understanding of individualism as the ideology of modernity.
Nikolay Mikhaylovsky (1842-1904) seems like an interesting theorist. A Russian sociologist who attempted to synthesize Darwin with Proudhon and had a radical approach to social science. Unsurprisingly, there is not much of his work available in English.
Here's a rough draft of "Readings in Gurvitchean Sociology" showcasing the thought of the neglected Proudhonian sociologist Georges Gurvitch (1894-1965)-
My favorite articles are on Lévy-Bruhl, Durkheim, Proudhon and Marx, and Mass, Community, Communion.
Anybody who has read Proudhon & then reads Durkheim will be struck by the number of similar theories and concepts.
Anybody who hasn’t read Proudhon but has only read Durkheim will be livid and hostile to the suggestion of a Proudhonian source to Durkheim’s theories and concepts.
"Left to himself the individual would become dependent upon physical forces. If he has been able to escape, to free himself, to develop a personality, it is because he has been able to shelter under a sui generis force;
It’s pretty annoying how nearly everyone’s opinions of socialism is totally warped by the legacy of Marxism.
Why does it seem like nearly everyone does not accept that there was a major schism within the socialism movement that took place within the IWMA spearheaded by Marx?
The “age of transcendence” occurred sometime around 800-300 BCE. It’s often assumed that prophets like Jesus & Muhammad fit within this. Instead, as Proudhon pointed out, they were more like messengers making explicit a movement already taking place in society toward immanence.