Read Mülkiyet Nedir? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Devrim Çetinkasap Online


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865): Anarşist tezleri ile tanınan ünlü Fransız düşünürü. 1840'da yayımlanan Mülkiyet Nedir? adlı ilk eserinde mülkiyeti hırsızlık olarak tanımlamasıyla ün kazandı. Bugünün toplumlarının da, hiyerarşik ilkel toplumların da varoluş koşulunun anarşi olduğunu öne süren Proudhon, 1848'deKurucu Meclis'e seçildi. 1849'da karşılıksız kredinin mümkünPierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865): Anarşist tezleri ile tanınan ünlü Fransız düşünürü. 1840'da yayımlanan Mülkiyet Nedir? adlı ilk eserinde mülkiyeti hırsızlık olarak tanımlamasıyla ün kazandı. Bugünün toplumlarının da, hiyerarşik ilkel toplumların da varoluş koşulunun anarşi olduğunu öne süren Proudhon, 1848'deKurucu Meclis'e seçildi. 1849'da karşılıksız kredinin mümkün olacağını göstermek üzere halk bankasını kurdu. Ne var ki bu kurum çalışamadı. Daha sonra iktisadi konular yerine sosyal ve siyasi konularda çalışmaya yöneldi. Federasyon İlkesi Üzerine adlı eserini yayımladıktan bir süre sonra öldü....

Title : Mülkiyet Nedir?
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789944888554
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 282 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Mülkiyet Nedir? Reviews

  • Joshua Crompton
    2019-01-24 21:39

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

  • Eric Gulliver
    2019-02-06 20:26

    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. At its conclusion, I turned the last page with an understanding of the basic argument and limited agreement in terms of my newfound perspective of private property.

  • tom bomp
    2019-02-04 21:28

    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

  • Kerem
    2019-02-07 21:24

    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...)

  • Lucian McMahon
    2019-02-08 13:33

    I have deep misgivings about this book. On the one hand, Proudhon is a brilliant prose writer, captivating his reader regardless of the subject matter. I agree with him on many points--on the injustice of authority, on the evils of governance, on the necessity for an anarchic society--but on many issues he is just flat-out wrong. The whole point of the treatise is to expose the injustice--even the impossibility--of property. Throughout the treatise I was deeply confused about what exactly, to Proudhon, property even is. He does distinguish between possession and property, albeit haphazardly; from what I can glean, property is most definitely found in raw materials and land. His arguments against any kind of metaphysical "right" to materials/land does indeed raise important questions, questions which even today libertarian theorists grapple over--what does it mean to "own," why is occupancy qua occupancy a progenitor of "right"? Even Proudhon's study of the ontology of property is cogent and well argued. However, I take most issue with his conclusions, his jarbled ad hominem invective against "capitalists" and "proprietors" and "murderers," his questionable logic lauded as the acme of reason and rationality. But most especially, I take issue with the fact that many of his arguments are supported by economic claims that are demonstrably--nay, grossly--false. His theory of wages and prices, his theory of exchange, even his theory of value are all dusty old anachronisms long since discarded as medieval. He can be excused for this, I suppose, considering economic science was in its infancy during his lifetime. However, this overthrows his entire thesis, namely that property is theft and is an institution of oppression of "man by man." In conclusion, then, I say that the book is an interesting read, an interesting study into the early thinkers of the anarchist movement. But as a defensible argument, as a serious issue to be raised in any intelligent debate, it is almost worthless; the economics, the psychology, and the logic are all convoluted and outdated. However, Proudhon does raise a very urgent issue: where exactly does property originate and how does such a "right" become created in a metaphysical sense. "We accuse men and gods, the powerful of the earth and the forces of nature. Instead of seeking the case of the evil in his mind and heart, man blames his masters, his rivals, his neighbours, and himself; nations arm themselves and slay and exterminate each other, until equilibrium is restored by great depopulation, and peace rises again from the ashes of the combatants. So loath is humanity to touch the customs of its ancestors and to change the laws given by the founders of cities and confirmed by the fidelity of posterity." 19-20"Justice is not the work of the law: on the contrary, the law is only the declaration and application of what is just in all circumstances where men have relations with one another. If then the idea that we form of justice and right is badly defined, if it is imperfect or even false, it is clear that all our legislative applications will be wrong, our institutions vicious, our politics erroneous, and as a result there will be disorder and social chaos." 23"Instead of applying themselves to the practical consequences of the principles of morality and government taught by the Word of God, his followers concerned themselves with speculations about his birth, his origin, his person, and his actions; they discussed his parables; and from the conflict of the most extravagant opinions upon unanswerable questions and texts which no one understood was born theology, which may be defined as the science of the infinitely absurd.""Liberty is inviolable. I can neither sell nor alienate my liberty; every contract, every condition of a contract which aims at the alienation or suspension of liberty, is null: the slave who plants his foot on free soil instantly becomes free." 37"Liberty is the original condition of man; to renounce liberty is to renounce the quality of a man: if we do this, how can we behave as men?" 38"One of two this is true: either the proportional tax affords greater privilege to the larger taxpayers, or else it is unjust. For if property is a natural right...all that belongs to me by virtue of this right is as sacred as my person; it is my blood, my life, it is myself: whoever touches it offends the apple of my eye. My income of 100,000 francs is as inviolable as the shopgirl's daily wage of 75 centimes, my suite of rooms as her attic. Taxes are not apportioned according to strength, size, or skill: no more should they be levied in proportion to property." 39"When religion commands us to help our brothers, it bases this on charity, not on a principle of legislation. The obligation of benevolence imposed on me by Christian morality cannot be imposed as a political tax for the benefit of any person, still less a poor house. I will give alms when I want to do so, when I feel for the unhappiness of others that sympathy about which philosophers talk and in which I hardly believe: I will not be forced to give them." 40"Yes, our civil state...a State which was at first despotism, then monarchy, then aristocracy, today democracy, and always tyranny." 60"Whoever says commerce says exchange of equal values, for if the values are not equal and the injured party perceives it, he will not consent to the exchange, and there will be no commerce." 103"Benevolence degenerates into tyranny and admiration into servility; friendship is the daughter of equality. O my friends! Let me live among you without emulation and without glory; let equality bring us together and fate assign us our places. Let me die without knowing to whom among you I owe the most esteem! Friendship is precious to the hearts of the children of men. Generosity, gratitude...and friendship are three distinct shades of a single sentiment which I will call 'equity' or 'social proportionality.' Equity does not change justice; but always taking equity as the base, it adds to it esteem and thereby forms in man a third degree of sociability. Equality makes it at once our duty and our pleasure to aid the weak who need us and to make them our equals; to pay to the strong a just tribute of gratitude and honour without making ourselves slaves to them; to cherish our neighbours, friends, and equals for what we receive from them, even by right of exchange. Equity is sociability raised to its ideal through reason and justice; its most usual manifestation is urbanity or politeness, which among certain nations sums up in a single work almost all the social duties." 182-83"The welfare of the oppressed is more important than the possible embarrassment to administrators." 187"The science of society, like all human sciences, will be forever incomplete. The depth and variety of the questions which it embraces are infinite. We hardly know the ABCs of this science, as is proved by the face that we have not yet emerged from the period of systems and have not ceased to put the authority of the majority in place of facts." 188"The inconveniences of communism are so obvious that its critics never had to employ much eloquence to arouse disgust with it. The irreparability of the injustice it causes, the violence it does to attractions and repulsions, the iron yoke it fastens upon the will, the moral torture it inflicts on the conscience, the debilitating effect it has on society, and, in a word, the pious and stupid uniformity it enforces on the free, active, reasoning, unsubdued personality of man--all these have shocked common sense and irrevocably condemned communism." 195-96"'But,' as some of my younger readers may protest, 'you are a republican.'--Republican, yes, but this word defines nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is concerned with public affairs, under whatever form of government, may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans. 'Well, then, are you a democrat?'--No.--'What! You are a monarchist?'--No.--'A constitutionalist?'--God forbid.--'You are then an aristocrat?'--Not at all.--'You want a mixed government?'--Still Less.--'So then what are you?' I am an anarchist...although a firm friend of order, I am, in every sense of the term, an anarchist." 204-05"Neither heredity, election, universal suffrage, the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and of time can make royalty legitimate. In whatever form it appears, monarchic, oligarchic, or democratic, royalty, or the government of man by man, is illegal and absurd." 207

  • Michael Dorais
    2019-01-26 15:39

    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.

  • Yves
    2019-01-29 13:15

    “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.

  • Andrew
    2019-01-29 17:29

    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.

  • Nora
    2019-01-20 20:39

    "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."

  • Leonardo Rodríguez
    2019-02-05 18:39

    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
    2019-01-31 19:16

    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.

  • Juan Amiguet Vercher
    2019-01-29 21:14

    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.

  • Shawn Birss
    2019-01-30 14:27

    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 EbookTranslated by Benjamin R. Tucker (I think - the Ebook doesn't name the translator)Three StarsJanuary 1-18, 2018☠

  • Otto Lehto
    2019-01-22 21:26

    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!

  • Frederick
    2019-01-16 19:37

    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.

  • Karol Ujueta Rojas
    2019-01-17 14:21

    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.

  • Signe Tolbøll
    2019-01-29 14:31

    Jeg vil ikke ligefrem påstå at jeg forstod hele bogen. Det var meget svært for mig at forstå så gammelt engelsk sprog. Men jeg har læst det meste af den. Læst i forbindelse med anarkistisk læsegruppe.

  • Ali
    2019-01-30 20:15

    "... önce despotizm, ardından monarşi, sonra aristokrasi, bugün de demokrasi, ama her daim zorbalık olan bu hali gerçekten de mülkiyete borçluyuz."

  • Jan Kroken
    2019-02-13 17:24

    flawed reasoning

  • Can Küçükyılmaz
    2019-02-06 16:33

    Kitabın başındaki önsözde, kitabın yayınlandığı tarihte otorite çevrelerini rahatsız ettiğini görebiliyorsunuz. Proudhon felsefesini toprağın kullanım hakkı - zilyetlik - karşıtlığı değil, toprağın kiraya verilmesi, mülkiyet karşıtlığı üzerine kuruyor. Varsayılan ön kabulleri tersine çevirmesi, "mülkiyet hırsızlıktır." yazdıklarını daha bellekte kalır hale getiriyor. Faiz ve mülkiyetin eş şeyler olduğu konusundaki fikrinde de kanımca haklı. Mülkiyet toprağın kiraya verilmesiyken, faiz paranın kiraya verilmesi. Neticede birbirini tamamlayan şeyler, ikisinden birinin ilgası diğer tarafla dengelenmeye yol açacağı için, ya ikisi de varolacak ya da ikisi de ilga edilecek.Genel olarak emeği kutsayan bir düşüncesi var. Burada ana meselesi kar ile. Bir nevi, para yerine zamanı koyuyor ve eşyaların üretim zamanına göre ücretlendirlmesini talep ediyor.Diğer yandan bireyci değil, toplumcu... Bireyin karını toplumun karıyla bir görüyor. Ama bu toplumculuğu sosyalistler gibi mutlak güçlü, her şeye sahip bir devlet istemesi değil, aksine mülkiyetin ilgası ile devletin de ilgasını talep ediyor.Son bölümde otoriteye mutlaka isyan edin diyerek, günümüzde Türkiye'de bu sözleri söylese muhtemelen, devletin birlik ve bütünlüğünü yıkmaya yönelik faaliyetten mahkemeye çıkardı.

  • Ralowe Ampu
    2019-02-10 14:42

    so commence weirdness. i have just completed my first canonical anarchist text. i'm still unclear about what i have done. can anarchism have tenets? what are you supposed to do with them? pierre-joseph proudhon marks this ambivalence in cheerily including pro-property louis auguste blanqui's letter of support in the preface. but it's this same invaginative ambivalence i remember in fred moten's notation (which i've taken up as a mantra pretty much) of blackness being the mutual inclusion of performance and essence, imposition and root. proudhon ultimately says that anarchy and order are in a similar coincident relation. what concerns me is how one is supposed to find novelty in anarchism? how is it different than wall street? again: incoherence, supplement, blah. i'm sure this has been canonically addressed and i'm merely stumbling over my own ignorance.

  • Bry Willis
    2019-01-23 14:24

    I have been viscerally opposed to the notion of private property for decades, but I never really gave it much critical analysis. This year, I decided to enquire more deeply, and I ended up here. Proudhon takes on every argument I had considered and then some. Proudhon was an Anarchist; he coined the term in this book, but this book should be read by Libertarians, who cherish property rights so dearly. Not a spoiler, but I was left disappointed that many of his arguments are cogent, yet they remain unopposed or marginalised. He has been criticised for not having a path forward, but that should not discredit the paths he eviscerated.

  • Ram
    2019-01-30 16:32

    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.

  • kubilay
    2019-02-09 13:19

    yarısına kadar bi şevkle okudum fakat sonra çok akademikleşti. böyle bir kitaptan daha çok nutuk beklerdim fakat proudhon da edebiyatçı değil sonuçta. son tahlilde daha sonra da okunacak kitaplar arasında yerini alan bir eser olduğunu söyleyebilirim.

  • Manuel
    2019-02-12 13:21

    Well elaborated theory of property. Special mention to the analysis of the downfall of the Roman empire in relation with the use and abuse of property and the influence of the Christian religion in the concept of property.

  • Brandon
    2019-02-05 15:35

    Just starting

  • Alex Vega
    2019-01-17 19:20

    I think every so called anarchist-punk should read this, I'm not a fan of all the ideas in the book but it really stands out for the criticism of property and capitalism

  • Charles Stanford
    2019-02-13 16:32

    (I'm actually reading it in electronic form, I just chose an icon that I liked from the paper editions)Devastating critique of property rights, seminal mutualist anarchist text

  • Michel Van Goethem
    2019-01-17 17:16

    La Propriété c'est le vol!

  • Tony
    2019-02-06 17:42

    I might like it if Proudhon was at all coherent.