Roberts, Joseph T. F. (2023). “The First Anarchist: Who was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon?”. 《The Collector》. 2025년 2월 13일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2025년 2월 22일에 확인함. 원문: The underlying cause of this oppression, Proudhon argues, is the existence of state-backed property rights. Property, in his view, is both theft and freedom. It is theft when one person owns the property that others need to survive. Property is theft when the person who owns it can own it without occupying it and can derive rent, income, and profit simply because they hold legal title. It is this form of property that allows a minority of property owners to control a majority of citizens, who are forever in debt simply because they don’t hold “title.” In this sense, property enabled a form of enslavement of the propertyless by the propertied minority. It is this enslavement that Proudhon’s anarchism seeks to challenge.
This, however, is not to say that all property should be held collectively. Unlike Marx, Proudhon doesn’t want property to be held as a monopoly by anyone, including the state. That, too, would enable the minority (i.e, political elites) to exercise undue control over the lives of the majority. If the proletariat is to achieve full emancipation, it must do so without the power of the state.
(...)What is needed is a property regime that enables freedom for all. The best way of guaranteeing freedom for all, Proudhon argues, is for each person or small group to own their own means of production. Property is legitimate when it is co-extensive with possession. Proudhon objects not to property per se, but to large accumulations.
Roberts, Joseph T. F. (2023). “The First Anarchist: Who was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon?”. 《The Collector》. 2025년 2월 13일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2025년 2월 22일에 확인함. 원문: The underlying cause of this oppression, Proudhon argues, is the existence of state-backed property rights. Property, in his view, is both theft and freedom. It is theft when one person owns the property that others need to survive. Property is theft when the person who owns it can own it without occupying it and can derive rent, income, and profit simply because they hold legal title. It is this form of property that allows a minority of property owners to control a majority of citizens, who are forever in debt simply because they don’t hold “title.” In this sense, property enabled a form of enslavement of the propertyless by the propertied minority. It is this enslavement that Proudhon’s anarchism seeks to challenge.
This, however, is not to say that all property should be held collectively. Unlike Marx, Proudhon doesn’t want property to be held as a monopoly by anyone, including the state. That, too, would enable the minority (i.e, political elites) to exercise undue control over the lives of the majority. If the proletariat is to achieve full emancipation, it must do so without the power of the state.
(...)What is needed is a property regime that enables freedom for all. The best way of guaranteeing freedom for all, Proudhon argues, is for each person or small group to own their own means of production. Property is legitimate when it is co-extensive with possession. Proudhon objects not to property per se, but to large accumulations.
Vincent 1984, 234쪽. harv error: 대상 없음: CITEREFVincent1984 (help)
worldcat.org
The Anarchist FAQ Collective; McKay, Ian, ed. (2008/2012). "Anarchism and 'anarcho'-capitalism". An Anarchist Faq. I/II. Oakland/Edinburgh: AK Press. ISBN9781902593906, 9781849351225. OCLC182529204. "Tucker and Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition to private property (in the capitalist sense of the word), although Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by talking about possession as 'property.'"
