From “absoluteness” to “balance”: Proudhon’s critique of private property

Abstract

  The purpose of this article is to examine the problem of “absoluteness” and “balance （équilibre）” in the early works of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon （1809-1865）, starting from his criticism of private property. To reach this aim, we attempt not to evaluate his argument on property merely as a law or economic theory, but to use it as a key for reconsidering his multidisciplinary social thought.

  When Proudhon criticizes private property and declares it to be “impossible” in Qu’est-ce que la propriété （1840）, he aims not only to condemn the inequality of conditions caused by it, but also to put into question the image of the individual supposed by this notion, particularly the “absoluteness” of the possessive individual. In the system of private property, man possesses an absolute power over his properties, as if he was a god with sovereign domain over the world he created. This sovereignty of man is considered the essential evil of property for the reason that it violates justice, the supreme law that is above men.

  This criticism of absoluteness leads Proudhon to develop his own conception of man, which is especially expressed in Système des contradictions économiques （1846） through the confrontation with the atheistic humanism of Feuerbach. Against Feuerbach’s divinization of humanity, which replaces God the omni-powerful, infinite, and fixed, Proudhon presents his conception of man as essentially discordant, imperfect, and progressive. As such, man is destined to seek a state of poise between opposing elements, while it is not in question to surmount his own discordant and multiple nature. Proudhon thereby proposes the ideal of “balance” in self as well as in society.

  Proudhon uses the notion of “series （série）” in De l’ordre dans l’humanité （1843） so as to realize this ideal of balance in human society. In an ensemble with a certain level of complexity, it is always possible to find out a new way to articulate the units, according to the point of view to take. Points of view are potentially innumerable, so there should necessarily be a way to exclude the existing inconveniences not by suppressing units nor imposing a moral to them, but by finding another combination between them.

  We can remark here the profound influence had by Fourier’s theory of series. However, while the “harmony” of the latter is already perfected and stable like the movement of planets, Proudhon’s balance is perpetually imperfect and subject to revision.