<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: What it the point?
Review: I oppose property politically and found this book completely unhelpful. Its arguments are, without exception, specious, Proudhon's style is verbose and graceless, and his answer to the question of the book's title a verbal wrangling which reduces the work to an attack a highly specific type of ownership in favour of another. Proudhon is no anarchist and no anarchist should look to this book for inspiration. It is of hitorical interest as a stage in the development of radical philosophy, nothing more.
Rating: 
Summary: A Useful Text
Review: Note: The previous reviewer is a known troll on various political discussion boards; he has developed a rabid hatred towards Anarchist ideology, so, if I were a customer considering this book, I would take his review with a grain of salt - it's full of very personal venom. For instance, to put Proudhon and Marx in the same category is blatant proof of the reviewer's prejudices; clearly, he has either not read the text or he is purposefully misrepresenting it. Proudhon would never have supported the authoritarianism espoused by Marx or any of his contemporaries and successors.Proudhon's discourse on property is a great thing to pit against the theories of Hobbes, Locke, and others. He examines property both as a natural right and as one derived from labor, attempting to prove both as false. Whether or not he successfully does so is up to the reader. This is a great book for people interested in political thought and social theory; regardless of whether or not you are a staunch capitalist or socialist, this book will either give you something to think about. For strong supporters of property, it may help solidify your beliefs while you read it with critical analysis. For opponents of property, it may give you support in your beliefs, or re-affirm that which you already feel. This book is recommended to any and all interested in the history of modern political thought; you just can't review literature as an ideologue, as the previous reviewer has shamefully done.
Rating: 
Summary: Scary stuff
Review: One of the basic concepts of Anarchism can be found within this tome, and that is the idea that "property is theft." In other words, the very act of ownership over a resource is a criminal action against the public. I would venture to say that this book alone has killed more people than the Malleus Maleficarum. Proudhon's basic reasoning is that property depends upon the State, and the State is inherently coercive and tyrannical, therefore property must be abolished along with the State. Marx was influenced by Proudhon, and some of the ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto are similar to what we see here. Of course it does not logically follow that the act of ownership over an object is to deprive someone else of their ability to enjoy that object as well. That would mean that everyone is entitled to all the goods and resources the world has to offer. One could easily say "I am entitled to use your house tonight", break in and crawl into your bed. By stopping him, you would be exercising coercion and authority, which under Anarchist precepts, is forbidden. The movement to abolish private property led to Lenin/Stalin's nationalization efforts. The confiscation of farms and property. Starvation, and even mass murder. Read it is a curiosity peice, nothing more. It is disturbing that some young people still find Proudhon's theories desirable.
Rating:
Summary: A Useful Text
Review: One of the basic concepts of Anarchism can be found within this tome, and that is the idea that "property is theft." In other words, the very act of ownership over a resource is a criminal action against the public. I would venture to say that this book alone has killed more people than the Malleus Maleficarum. Proudhon's basic reasoning is that property depends upon the State, and the State is inherently coercive and tyrannical, therefore property must be abolished along with the State. Marx was influenced by Proudhon, and some of the ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto are similar to what we see here. Of course it does not logically follow that the act of ownership over an object is to deprive someone else of their ability to enjoy that object as well. That would mean that everyone is entitled to all the goods and resources the world has to offer. One could easily say "I am entitled to use your house tonight", break in and crawl into your bed. By stopping him, you would be exercising coercion and authority, which under Anarchist precepts, is forbidden. The movement to abolish private property led to Lenin/Stalin's nationalization efforts. The confiscation of farms and property. Starvation, and even mass murder. Read it is a curiosity peice, nothing more. It is disturbing that some young people still find Proudhon's theories desirable.
Rating:
Summary: Great text for anyone studying radical political thought.
Review: Proudhon writes with a flair that captivates the reader and thrusts him into the revolutionary spirit. Fans of Michael Bakunin and Rudolf Rocker will love this work. One of the best reads on early anarchist thought. If you are anti-property you will love this book!
Rating: 
Summary: Not against property
Review: The idea that Proudhon was against property is one of the greatest myths about him and quite a surprising one as such. His famous statement, "Property is Theft," is later accompanied by, "Property is Liberty." In fact, his whole aim seems to be to show that property on the one hand corrupts, but that this corruption is the only possible basis for liberty - which is the ultimate aim. While Proudhon may be considered a radical, he sure was no leftwinged radical. Read for yourself! Overall he is a bit confused and confusing, his ideas of law and justice rather strange and even disturbing (law is what you cannot avoid admitting, and justice the right balance (supply and demand)). This guy took Smith a bit seriously and didn't care much about Marx's critique of society - although he has some surprisingly great critiques of communism.
<< 1 >>
| 
