[Here's a bit from the proudhon-seminar list, in case you were wondering what you were missing.]

I took a trip into Portland today, to check in at the radical bookstore where I'm volunteering and to look over some untranslated material in a fresh setting. It always seems to clear my head even just to get out on the light-rail and work a bit. And I can be sure of having a cat-free lap, which is not the case in my office at home. As I mentioned, I've been working on the "Summary of my earlier works on property," from Proudhon's posthumously-published "The Theory of Property." In that chapter, Proudhon makes some criticisms of his own of "What Is Property?" which we'll eventually have to look at, and gives a lengthy (51 page) account of the development of his thought. As I mentioned to Erik, the majority of the later works are not translated, so it's very hard to deal very directly with that development in this sort of setting.

But the development of Proudhon's theory always haunts any discussion of it in circles as ideologically diverse as the audience for this seminar. It would be nice if we could clarify the nature of the development and lay that particular ghost for a bit.

And maybe we can. Rafael has already remarked on Proudhon's "Hegelian formula," which leads him to think of liberty as the "synthesis of communism and property." On pages 258-9, Proudhon writes:

"Communism--the first expression of the social nature--is the first term of social development,--the THESIS; property, the reverse of communism, is the second term,--the ANTITHESIS. When we have discovered the third term, the SYNTHESIS, we shall have the required solution. Now, this synthesis necessarily results from the correction of the thesis by the antithesis. Therefore it is necessary, by a final examination of their characteristics, to eliminate those features which are hostile to sociability. The union of the two remainders will give us the true form of human association."

He then goes on to say that:

"The objects of communism and property are good--their results are bad. And why? Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law."

The "hostile feature" of both opposing principles is their partiality. If all four elements are embraced, then we have liberty. "Synthesis," in this case, is an entire remaking of the two antinomic principles. The result is anarchistic because it doesn't require or leave room for "governmentalism," which Proudhon has associated with "communism" (more or less.)

Now, the transformation of Proudhon's thought involved a series of insights and developments. For our purposes, though, the important one is probably the one we see in the "Toast to the Revolution," where Proudhon suggests that individual and collective concerns can't simply be alloyed, that they are not simply opposed, and that a thoroughgoing individualization of interests and pursuits is the road to a legitimate form of non-state centralization.

Leap forward to the formula of "The Theory of Property," where Proudhon embraces simple property, despite its absolutist, egoistic, despotic tendencies (with limitations of term based on occupancy and use). Is this a major change from the position of 1840?

I want to suggest that it is not. We have essentially the same terms, a centralizing tendency and an individual absolutism. The only thing that has really changed is Proudhon's understanding of the "systems of contradictions." In "Justice in the Revolution and in the Church," he came to a realization about "dialectics:"

"L'ANTINOMIE NE SE RÉSOUT PAS : là est le vice fondamental de toute la philosophie hégélienne. Les deux termes dont elle se compose se BALANCENT, soit entre eux, soit avec d'autres termes antinomiques"

That is, "The antinomy does not resolve itself." It is not resolved. "The two terms of which it is composed are balanced, either by one another, or by other antinomic terms."

If Proudhon had approached the question in this way in 1840, wouldn't the logical formula for the "third form of society" be the balance or equilibrium, the counterpoise of property and communism? In 1840 we already have the acknowledgment that "the objects of communism and property are good." Isn't this essentially the acknowledgment that either might be justified according to its "aims"?

It seems to me that very little, other than Proudhon's opinion about whether or not "the antinomy resolves itself," actually changes. And that leaves us with roughly three responses: 1) to prefer the approach of 1840; 2) to prefer the approach of the 1860s; or 3) to feel that the terms are essentially ill-conceived.

Maybe that lays the ghost a bit.

-shawn

The July group reading of Proudhon's "What Is Property?" is on, and you can reach both the discussion list and the project page from the front page of anarchylist.org. Subscribe to the discussion list, and check the project page if you think you've missed anything.

Mark your calendars: July 1-14, mutualschool. org will be hosting its first educational event, a close look at the first memoir of Proudhon's What Is Property? I'm preparing an annotated wiki version of the texts, a series of notes and "lectures" on various aspects of the text, and some short translations from related works. Proudhon's first work .. was not his final word on the matter, and it was written at a time when he was still developing his understanding of the issues involved. There are, I think, some pretty serious problems with the text. It is, nonetheless, and deservedly so, considered one of great works of the anarchist tradition. It's basic claim—that "property is theft"—was one which Proudhon never abandoned, even as he came to embrace property "in its aims" in his later works.

Market anarchists or anti-propertarians— we will make no headway in dealing historically with the question of "property" (or "possession" or "occupancy and use," etc.) without coming to terms with Proudhon's original work.

The form of the event is largely open. I can provide a discussion list, but we already have discussion lists (anarchy-list, leftlibertarian2, etc), forums (leftlibertarian. org, infoshop.org, libertarian- labyrinth. org, etc), wikis, blogs, etc. While more traditional courses will probably require the use of mutualschool. org's Moodle "classrooms, " these "open classroom" events are perhaps best tackled as an extension of the sorts of communication we are already engaged in, and may be organized rather differently. I'm open to suggestions, and will make the resources on my sites available to facilitate things. At minimum, I'll be setting up some wiki pages to track things, and to establish a basic path through the material, and we ought to be able to figure out a way to generate an RSS feed of material.

"Tutition" for these events will be purely voluntary. If you think that the organizing work merits compensation, then there will be opportunities to contribute to the cause. If other forums serve the project well, I would encourage contributions to support them. The formal courses, with set fees, will come in time, but these exploratory projects might as well explore our inclination and ability to create self-supporting institutions, as they explore our historical and theoretical legacy.

Spread the word. Leave a comment if you are interested in participating, or if you have suggestions. I would love to see a variety of perspectives involved in the discussion, though things will obviously work best if we all attempt to really understand the work before we critique it, or its alternatives, too much.

-shawn

Well, I reached the Pacific Northwest yesterday, patched things up with the cats (who flew out five days ago) and am waiting for my library and computers to arrive. I had a chance to putter away at some translation of Bellegarigue's second issue of Anarchy: A Journal of Order on the train. I dragged the paper files for LeftLiberty with me in an old salesman's specimen case that serves as a mobile file cabinet, so I can get back to work on that today.

I've been rearranging a lot of projects, trimming some obsolete stuff, incorporating old efforts into new ones, and working on networking the whole mess a whole lot more efficiently. My hope is to get the basic structure of everything in its new form prepared for launch/relaunch by July 4. That includes: the wiki versions of the Libertarian Labyrinth and The Distributive Passions, a portal site on Mutualism at mutualism.info, a site for the 20-year-old Anarchy-List (which is set for a relaunch of sorts of its own), the first issue of LeftLiberty and a portal in the Labyrinth archive for that, the first educational material associated with mutualschool.org, and a new project related to "civil defense" in the contemporary context.

If that sounds like a lot, well, it pretty obviously is. But my situation is this: for the last three years I have been living the simplest of lives, going without lots of things (car, insurance, heat in the winter last year, etc) just to keep working at the things that are important to me. That has meant I've been relentless on the research side, and a bit spotty on the writing and publishing side. Nobody is more aware than I am of the number of projects left unfinished, or transformed into something else. I have now placed myself in a position to "go to work" on liberty-related projects as if it was my job. And that's what I'll be doing, in a variety of ways. It's a matter of vocation for me (in a strong sense, that has more than just a little to do with my Christian upbringing). What I hope to explore is the extent to which it can also be made a career of the sort that requires fewer sacrifices. More about that anon. . .

A new anarchist journal/zine.

Here’s the skinny:
---
OK, folks. It’s time for me to start really working on the first issue of "LeftLiberty," which I’m announcing for July 4 (about 5 weeks after I move). I’ve roughed out a logo and regular columns. You can check them out. This is the project that has grown out of the somewhat stillborn earlier discussion of an ALL zine.

The plan is to "shake the debate from both ends," by presenting original material from early 19th-century sources, much of it newly translated, along with contemporary responses to the same issues, from a range of anarchist and libertarian positions. I’ll be translating, editing, and contributing some commentary, as well as providing some art and fiction. I have pulled a motto from Proudhon’s "Justice in the Revolution and in the Church:" "The organ of collective reason is the same as that of the collective force: it is the group..." It is, perhaps, not immediately clear why this is a great motto for an individualist journal. But the first two issues will be dealing with precisely the issues of the individual and society, and Proudhon’s "collective force" notion will get some explanation and play. The main text for Issue One will be Pierre Leroux’s 1834 "Individualism and Socialism," basically the first comparison in modern terms of the two concepts, by the guy who claimed to have invented them both. (He was very nearly right.) From the text:

"We are again at the same point," he wrote, in a moment of particular social tension, following the massacre in the Rue Transnonain, "with two pistols [extreme individualism and extreme socialism] charged and pointed at one another. Our soul is the prize of two equal and apparently contrary powers. Our perplexity will only cease when the social science succeeds in harmonizing the two principles, who our two tendencies have been satisfied. Then an immense contentment will replace that anguish."

Not quite an anarchist, but essentially a mutualist before the fact, Leroux was one of Proudhon’s primary foils. He was also, par extraordinaire, the philosopher of "solidarity," which will be the focus of the second issue.

I’ve just solicited a first round of responses to questions. The "Market Anarchist Answers" question will probably be about commerce and reciprocity.

"Slackwater and Swift" is part of an alternate history of Gilead (now Grand Rapids), OH, which is just up the road a piece from me, and which was owned by Lysander Spooner, during his 1830s land-speculation days. It deals with property rights: how to organize knowledge-work without patent law, and how to harmonize property rights with issues like wetlands preservation.

---

Starting in July, I’ll be producing a new journal/zine, called "LeftLiberty," and dedicated to "the left-libertarian conversation in all its phases and ages." It’s connected to the project of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left, and focuses on clarifying what is really at stake in some of the messier debates in the broad anarchist movement.

Issues will be arranged around key concepts with the first two issues addressing "Individualism, Socialism, and Solidarity." I’m finishing up a translation of Pierre Leroux’s 1834 "Individualism and Socialism" for the first issue, which will also include a "miscellany" of early anarchist texts on individualism and socialism, from Proudhon, Dejacque, Greene, Tucker, Warren, and others.

But one of the goals is to also canvas contemporary anarchists, libertarians and fellow-travellers for their thoughts on these concepts, in order to get a picture of the actual "state of the debates.

" With that in mind, I’m throwing out a general call for answers to these questions:

* What is "socialism"?
* What is "individualism"?
* What is "solidarity"?
* What role, if any, do these concepts have in anarchism?

I’ll try to stitch together an overview from the contributions, and will credit everyone who responds. All contributions will appear in the electronic version of the issue, in the new wiki-based "Labyrinth" archive. The print version will include representative excerpts.

A nation of people, drowning in postmodern cut-up culture, who simply couldn't communicate without lines from old Simpson's episodes, get uptight because one politician borrowed a few lines from another?! The mind boggles, honestly. Watching the supporters of our "change" candidates tear each other new ones over this on the chat boards, it seems clear large sectors of America are really just ready for more of the self-destructive same old.

There are, after all, real issues out there. But I suppose this, or another sports steroid investigation, is more fun than trying to deal with the wars, or health care, or providing opportunities for the truly impoverished. Once again: with good enough circuses, you can almost skip the bread...

-----
My last hoorah in a more-or-less formal teaching environment in Bowling Green will be an informal seminar on mutualism (and related topics). I'll be at UCF Wednesday nights, from 7 to 9 pm, every week from next week until I roll out of here in May. I'll be presenting my current work on "Mutualism: the Anarchism of Approximations," covering some of the historical ground from the cancelled graduate seminar, talking a bit about the economic and ethical implications of mutualism, and all this will hopefully spark some discussion of what it means to be a "radical" or an "activist" these days.

When I say things will be informal, I mean it. There's no charge (though i may leave a tip jar out), and no required readings. Folks should feel free to come and go as they please, and pursue the material on their own time as deeply (or not) as suits them. Some folks have expressed an interest in hearing this material laid out in a more systematic way. And I want to take the opportunity to wrap up some conversations, and start some new ones.

For me, 2008 looks like a transitional year, with a lot of new projects (online mutual school, new zine, new look and organization for the archive, etc.), many of which can still have a Bowling Green connection, even when I'm off to the Rose City. If we make the connections happen. . .

Contact me with any questions.

-shawn

This morning's announcement about an 8' prehistorical sea-scorpion reminded me that I hadn't looked for pics of Nigersaurus, the giant prehistoric vaccuum-cleaner/"Mesozoic cow" that was reported a couple of weeks back. The image returned by Google Images was more shocking than I had ever imagined.

As a Stupid Search Engine Trick, this may top the William B. Greene Myspace mix-up.

New stuff on the main blog, including some controversial material about mutualism.

Portland, OR (Gresham, actually), by sometime this summer. Research on the way, so that I can assemble the critical edition of Greene's mutual bank writings as soon as I get settled. A final combing of the library system here for public domain material for the archive. Lots of energy into the online libertarian school project. A year delay on my grad school app, while I consider other options.

I have a vague sense that mutual-aid-based community development work is in my future, but that various re/inventions are necessary first.

The Spring course has been concelled, for lack of enrollment.