160 years after his death, the first self-proclaimed anarchist deserves criticism—but not oblivion
~ Maurice Schuhmann ~
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon died on January 19, 1865, at the age of 56. A few years after his death, some of his ideas became foundational to what we now understand as the Paris Commune, and later to various currents of anarchism. Like many protagonists of “classical” anarchism, from today’s perspective Proudhon is a deeply ambivalent figure.
On the one hand, we owe him the first theoretical foundations for diverse strands of anarchism: critique of property, the state, and religion; federalism, mutualism and workers’ self-management; and an anchor in social analysis. Proudhon influenced figures as diverse as Bakunin and Tolstoy, and Kropotkin called him “the father of anarchism”.
On the other hand, Proudhon was also an important influence on figures such as Georges Sorel (Reflections on Violence), Richard Wagner (The Ring), and the fascist Action Française (Cercle Proudhon), and we are repelled by the antisemitic and misogynistic statements in his work. While these aspects are inexcusable, historical context helps us explain them more fully.
Proudhon’s antisemitism is rooted in the structural tendencies of socialist thought in his era. The crude and false equivalence of “Jews = capitalists” was then commonplace in socialist discourse. Antisemitic outbursts—though the term itself did not yet exist—can also be found in the writings of early socialists like Charles Fourier (Le Nouveau Monde industriel et sociétaire) and, famously, Karl Marx (part 2 of “On the Jewish question”). In Proudhon’s case, certain statements are also generalisations of his personal animosity toward critics he subsumed under the label “Jews,” such as Heinrich Heine (Atta Troll) or again Marx (The Poverty of Philosophy).
Proudhon is also not alone in his misogyny. The statements and actions of many anarchist men were (and remain to this day) marked by a definite hostility toward women. Proudhon’s later adherent Daniel Guérin, a pioneer of the gay liberation movement, interpreted this misogyny as an expression of repressed homosexuality (Proudhon, oui et non). This does not make such statements any better, but associates them with kind of misogyny expressed by various homosexual anarchists (e.g., John Henry Mackay, Erich Mühsam).
Proudhon’s influence
As to more positive aspects of his thought, it is worth engaging with at least three of Proudhon’s ideas: the critique of property, mutualism, and workers’ self-management.
The often-quoted phrase—”Property is theft!”—is the quintessence of what Proudhon analysed in his first major work, What Is Property?, whose appendix features the famous dialogue where he declares himself an anarchist and reclaims the term, transforming it from a pejorative into a positive concept.
The idea itself—the characterisation of property as theft—was not new. It can be found in Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the origins of inequality) and even in the controversial Marquis de Sade (Justine, ou les Malheurs de la vertu ). However, it was through Proudhon’s ideas that parts of the socialist movement came to radically challenge the concept of property for the first time. Among his enthusiastic readers was his later critic Karl Marx, who in 1844 invited him to contribute to his German-French Yearbook, for which Michael Bakunin also wrote.

By mutualism, Proudhon meant a form of social and economic exchange based on mutual aid, cooperation, and voluntary exchange—free from capitalist exploitation. He developed this concept in works such as “On the creation of order among humanity” and “The philosophy of poverty”. A practical example of mutualism was his short-lived project of a People’s Bank (Banque du Peuple), offering interest-free loans, which was ultimately banned by the French state.
To some extent, the microcredit programs implemented in development cooperation projects today can be seen as a diluted form of mutualism. What is absent from Proudhon’s conception of mutualism, however, is a critique of value or the logic of exchange itself.
Closely linked to the concept of mutualism is the idea of workers’ self-management, which was implemented by Proudhon’s followers in the Paris Commune (and in free Communes in other French cities). In his posthumously published work, On the political capacity of the working classes, he developed for the first time the idea of self-management, which has since become inseparable from anarchism and libertarian communism.
So who needs Proudhon? Ultimately, I believe his work must be viewed and received in its historical context, and with all its contradictions. Despite the necessary criticisms, it remains an important milestone, and may still serve as a source of inspiration for modern anarchism.