Shortly before the 1864 elections, the Manifesto of the Sixty appeared,
advocating workers' candidacies independent of bourgeois parties.
Although reformist, this demonstration of class independence constituted
an event, a prelude to the constitution of the International
Workingmen's Association. The researcher Michael Paraire explains why
the old Proudhon, although critical, supported the "sixty". Fifteen
years after his death, when the anarchist movement was formed, he would
perpetuate this demand for independence, but by giving it a
revolutionary meaning, a boycott of bourgeois institutions.
A protean thinker, a tempestuous man, touchy, and often quarrelsome,
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - the intellectual who revolutionized
19th-century political thought with his 1840 formula "property is
theft!" - has been called by all philosophical schools. He has been
called liberal, socialist, anticlerical, spiritualist, parliamentarian,
anti-parliamentarian, authoritarian and anti-authoritarian. To justify
what some consider to be his "contradictions", his "errors" - when in
fact they are simply intellectual developments - he himself developed an
original conception of dialectics, built on the model of the pendulum of
Justice, by which he claimed to balance all opposites. Unlike Marx, who
considered that opposites could only exclude each other, on the model of
the physics of shocks[1].
But the truth is that, despite the evident continuity of an original
thought, there is a long way from the author of the first Memoir on
Property (1840) to that of Theory of Property (1866), just as there is a
long way from The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d'Etat of
December 2 (1852) to the Federal Principle (1863), or from the
philosopher of Justice in the Revolution and in the Church (1858) to the
author who wanted to devote a great treatise on God, which he did not
have time to write, but who left us several annotated commentaries on
the Bible (1867) and an astonishing posthumous writing, Jesus and the
Origins of Christianity (1896). On the parliamentary question, we find
the same developments which led him, initially, to accept being a member
of the national deputation and then to reject any idea of participating
in the elections, following, in particular, his polemics against the
government resulting from the Assembly of 1848 which made him unpopular
with all his colleagues and excluded from parliament.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) had a lasting influence on the
workers' movement with his ideas on self-management and mutualism.
This is where the affair of the Manifesto of the Sixty[2]comes in.
Solicited in 1863 by a group of about sixty Parisian workers, led by the
bronze chaser Henri Tolain (illustration), who wanted to escape the
anonymity and poverty to which the condition of their class had
relegated them, Proudhon lent them a hand in putting their demands in
order and presenting themselves to the voters of the Seine. For the
manifesto, officially written with the participation of the socialist
journalist Henri François Lefort, bears all the "stigmata" of
Proudhonian thinking: opposition between formal democracy and real
democracy, appeal to general ideas, marked preference for the notion of
reform over that of bloody revolution, affirmation of a possible
conciliation between certain demands of the liberal party and the
nascent workers' party, desire to merge opposites in a perspective of
common interest.
This Manifesto demands:
The repeal of Article 1781 of the Civil Code, which imposed, at the
time, the absolute power of the master in determining the payment of wages;
The repeal of the law on coalitions;
The creation of trade union chambers;
Free primary and vocational education.
He also celebrates "the profoundly democratic spirit of the great city",
"democracy in its most radical and clearest sense", "freedom of work",
"credit" and "solidarity". He smells of Proudhon in full.
This Manifesto is a surprising text that marks the irruption of the
French working class into the electoral political field. It is radically
different from the demands for social rupture or class struggle, as they
are set out by Marx, for example, in the Manifesto of the Communist
Party of 1848. It is not a question of ending the French Revolution[3],
but of fulfilling its promises, of denying the "rights of man and of the
citizen" but of realizing them, of erasing democracy, but of making it
effective, for all, in a spirit of mutuality and sharing that will have
a decisive influence on the union demands of the future French workers'
movement, to the point that it is considered one of the inspirers of the
federative philosophy of Fernand Pelloutier's Bourses du travail[4].
So how could the man who claimed in Solution du problème social (1848)
to avoid the pitfalls of politics in order to resolve economic
contradictions with the help of a simple "financial" institution, the
"People's Bank" - the ancestor of modern mutual banks, a pioneering
experiment in the field of the social and solidarity economy (SSE)[5]-
agree to give an electoral helping hand to "reformist",
"parliamentarian" workers? How could he, who had been rejected, fifteen
years earlier, by both the party of the liberal bourgeoisie and the
imperial party - all of which ended up excluding him, ultimately forcing
him into exile, after having him thrown in prison - come to the aid of
people running in a biased electoral system where the games, whatever
one may say, are already decided?
Seven months after the Manifesto of the Sixty, the International
Workingmen's Association was founded with the slogan "The emancipation
of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves."
This is because Proudhon was obsessed by two things. First of all, he
wanted to see his ideas embodied in reality[6]. So he never bothered to
know who was going to realize them: the Assembly of 1848, Napoleon III,
workers like Tolain, who would participate in the International, to be
elected, finally, senator of the Seine, vengeful writers like Jules
Vallès[7]who would write the Red Poster, at the time of the Commune?
Basically, it mattered little to him, as long as he had the feeling that
the individuals or groups in question each brought, with their qualities
and their defects, his ideas, his projects, into the public square.
Then, Proudhon, an anti-dogmatic spirit, was quite capable of opening
himself to new proposals as long as they seemed to him to go in the
right direction, that of resolving the "contradictions of poverty" that
he had been denouncing since Philosophy of Poverty (1846). If we take
this point of view, his intellectual coherence is undeniable. It can be
summed up in a few words: to resolve the problem of poverty by a series
of radical reforms using all the non-violent institutional means at his
disposal. These institutions could be of different natures: economic,
social, political. He did not care. Gifted, moreover, with a gift for
the pen that was as much a matter of genius as of graphomania, he was
capable of granting, if he thought their cause was just, time to people
who came to him for help.
Meurisse Agency
It is therefore not surprising that he took care to support the demands
of these 60 workers from the Seine who came to see him, in the evening
of his life, when he was already very ill. Caught up in the game, he
even wrote a complete political program for the working class entitled
On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes (1865)[8]in which he
advocated the union of the working classes and the peasantry -
considered at the time as reactionary by Blanqui but which Proudhon, a
peasant of Besançon origin, greatly appreciated - and which was still
the majority class in France at that time. The Spanish revolutionaries
of 1936 would give, seventy years later, to this social, unitary vision,
a concrete revolutionary meaning. These men and women were, moreover,
more Proudhonian than has been said[9].
We too often forget, in fact, that the Spanish Revolution was nourished
by Proudhonian formulas according to which "the cause of the peasants is
the same as that of the workers of industry" and "the Marianne of the
fields is the counterpart of the Sociale of the cities"[10]. The idea of
"mutuality", applied to all social domains, which Proudhon affirms in On
the Political Capacity of the Working Classes that it is the future of
"working democracy", wishing to realize the ideal of the balance of
Justice, will serve as a compass, with Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid,
to the Spanish revolutionaries. The latter will even agree to
participate in a republican government, while refusing to seize the
"great regal ministries", doubtless underestimating the political and
institutional aspect of the Revolution. But there again it was a
position inherited from Proudhon's sometimes convoluted reflections on
this subject.
Whether he proclaimed, as in 1840, "property is theft!" or, as in 1862,
"property is freedom!", whether he walked part of the way with Napoleon
III or marched in concert with the workers of the Manifesto of the
Sixty, whether he inspired conservatives, liberals, reformists or
revolutionaries, Proudhon will have remained a man of the people,
evolving, but true to himself, eager to find, through the bric-a-brac of
general ideas, a concrete, effective response to the eternal problem of
social misery and human suffering.
Michael Paraire
WHEN THE DISCIPLES SURPASS THE OLD MASTER
For the historian René Berthier, the episode of the Manifesto of the
Sixty, in 1864, testifies to the surpassing of Proudhon by the
Proudhonian workers themselves. Although reformists, they were pushed by
necessity (growing industrialization) and by example (the nascent trade
unionism in England) to advocate strikes, a tactic that Proudhon refuted.
For the international workers' movement, 1864 was a pivotal year:
Lassalle died having set in motion a genuine German socialist party,
Tolain published the Manifesto of the Sixty, Proudhon wrote On the
Political Capacity of the Working Classes and the International
Workingmen's Association (IWA) was founded.
The conclusion of Political Capacity sets out the conditions for the
proletariat to achieve capacity:
The working class has come to consciousness of itself "from the point of
view of its relations with society and with the State," he says; "as a
collective, moral and free being, it distinguishes itself from the
bourgeois class";
She possesses an "idea", a notion "of her own constitution", she knows
"the laws, conditions and formulas of her existence";
But Proudhon asks himself whether "the working class is able to deduce,
for the organization of society, practical conclusions which are proper
to it." He answers in the negative[...].
However, on September 28, 1864, the IWA was founded in London, which
would show how wrong Proudhon was.[...]. He seems[...]to ignore the
reality of the workers' movement of his time.
From 1852 to the law on coalitions of May 25, 1864, countless strikes
shook the country for wage increases, the reduction of working hours,
poor working conditions, to protest against the dismissal of a worker in
1857 in Vicoigne, in the North. The resistance societies, repressed by
the authorities, often dissolved, were reconstituted under other names
and under other attributions: mutual aid societies, for example.[...].
The driving force used in factories increased fivefold between 1849 and
1869. Technical progress, machinery increased labor productivity and
reduced production costs. Work in factories expanded. And during this
period, the increase in wages did not follow that of the cost of living.
Real wages fell. The living conditions of workers deteriorated
considerably.[...].
From the point of view of the workers' project, the Political Capacity
is far below the Manifesto of the Sixty of 1864 which, at least, calls
for the constitution of workers' unions independent of the bosses,
addresses the fate of children in factories, etc.[...]
Ten years later, James Guillaume, a close friend of Bakunin, wrote a
book, Anarchy according to Proudhon[...]. It was a sort of
sorting[...]and commenting on "the part of Proudhon's theories which,
taken up in the IWA program, entered into social life". In short, the
anarchist movement of 1874 only referred to Proudhon selectively, and
only for the ideas he developed around 1848.[...]. The revolutionary
syndicalists, thirty years later, would prove no less perceptive than
the activists around Bakunin.
Rene Berthier
Excerpt from "About the Manifesto of the Sixty", Monde-nouveau.net.
To validate
[1]On Proudhon's dialectic as a theory of balance, of Justice and on its
difference with that of Marx, see Georges Gurvitch, Dialectic and
Sociology, Flammarion, 1962. In this text Georges Gurvitch explains well
how Proudhon's unifying, inclusive dialectic seeks to balance opposites,
to unite them, while Marx's exclusive dialectic radically opposes them
to each other (see the model of the class struggle in the thought of
historical materialism).
[2]"Manifesto of the Sixty", presentation by René Berthier, New World.
[3]Pierre Guiral, "Proudhon and the French Revolution", Historical
Annals of the French Revolution, no. 184, 1966, pp. 109-123.
[4]Lucien Febvre, "Four lessons on French trade unionism
(August-September and summer 1920)", Le Mouvement social, no. 238, 2012,
pp. 17-51.
[5]Laurent Gardin, "Proudhon, father of the social and solidarity
economy?", 10th meetings of the Inter-university Network of the ESS,
Luxembourg, June 3-4, 2010.
[6]Proudhon claimed to adhere to a theory he called "ideo-realism",
where primacy is clearly given to the idea over reality. This is a
legacy of the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte who proclaimed that
"Ideas lead the world". This distinguishes it from the economic and
historical materialism of Marx and Engels. See Pierre Ansart, Sociologie
de Proudhon, PUF, 1967, p. 144.
[7]Jean Bancal, Proudhon and the Commune, Self-management and socialism,
notebook no. 15, 1971, p. 37-81.
[8]This last work, which he had time to reread before the manuscript
went to the printers, was published shortly after Proudhon's death. In
it, he discusses the Manifesto of the Sixty with benevolence, asserting
that the only thing missing from this text, as from the nascent
proletariat, was one Idea, that of "Mutuality", of "Law", of "Justice",
applicable to all areas of social, political and economic life. It is
this Idea that he expounds throughout his work, which can be considered
his political testament.
[9]Marxist historiography having long dominated the field of
publications of a so-called "scientific" nature, the influence of the
thought of Proudhon and Kropotkin, in the advent of the Revolution of
1936-1939, has long been underestimated. It still remains so.
[10]Proudhon, On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes, chapter
II, Dentu publisher, 1865.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?1864-Le-Manifeste-des-Soixante-une-etape-pour-la-cause-ouvriere
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
advocating workers' candidacies independent of bourgeois parties.
Although reformist, this demonstration of class independence constituted
an event, a prelude to the constitution of the International
Workingmen's Association. The researcher Michael Paraire explains why
the old Proudhon, although critical, supported the "sixty". Fifteen
years after his death, when the anarchist movement was formed, he would
perpetuate this demand for independence, but by giving it a
revolutionary meaning, a boycott of bourgeois institutions.
A protean thinker, a tempestuous man, touchy, and often quarrelsome,
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - the intellectual who revolutionized
19th-century political thought with his 1840 formula "property is
theft!" - has been called by all philosophical schools. He has been
called liberal, socialist, anticlerical, spiritualist, parliamentarian,
anti-parliamentarian, authoritarian and anti-authoritarian. To justify
what some consider to be his "contradictions", his "errors" - when in
fact they are simply intellectual developments - he himself developed an
original conception of dialectics, built on the model of the pendulum of
Justice, by which he claimed to balance all opposites. Unlike Marx, who
considered that opposites could only exclude each other, on the model of
the physics of shocks[1].
But the truth is that, despite the evident continuity of an original
thought, there is a long way from the author of the first Memoir on
Property (1840) to that of Theory of Property (1866), just as there is a
long way from The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d'Etat of
December 2 (1852) to the Federal Principle (1863), or from the
philosopher of Justice in the Revolution and in the Church (1858) to the
author who wanted to devote a great treatise on God, which he did not
have time to write, but who left us several annotated commentaries on
the Bible (1867) and an astonishing posthumous writing, Jesus and the
Origins of Christianity (1896). On the parliamentary question, we find
the same developments which led him, initially, to accept being a member
of the national deputation and then to reject any idea of participating
in the elections, following, in particular, his polemics against the
government resulting from the Assembly of 1848 which made him unpopular
with all his colleagues and excluded from parliament.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) had a lasting influence on the
workers' movement with his ideas on self-management and mutualism.
This is where the affair of the Manifesto of the Sixty[2]comes in.
Solicited in 1863 by a group of about sixty Parisian workers, led by the
bronze chaser Henri Tolain (illustration), who wanted to escape the
anonymity and poverty to which the condition of their class had
relegated them, Proudhon lent them a hand in putting their demands in
order and presenting themselves to the voters of the Seine. For the
manifesto, officially written with the participation of the socialist
journalist Henri François Lefort, bears all the "stigmata" of
Proudhonian thinking: opposition between formal democracy and real
democracy, appeal to general ideas, marked preference for the notion of
reform over that of bloody revolution, affirmation of a possible
conciliation between certain demands of the liberal party and the
nascent workers' party, desire to merge opposites in a perspective of
common interest.
This Manifesto demands:
The repeal of Article 1781 of the Civil Code, which imposed, at the
time, the absolute power of the master in determining the payment of wages;
The repeal of the law on coalitions;
The creation of trade union chambers;
Free primary and vocational education.
He also celebrates "the profoundly democratic spirit of the great city",
"democracy in its most radical and clearest sense", "freedom of work",
"credit" and "solidarity". He smells of Proudhon in full.
This Manifesto is a surprising text that marks the irruption of the
French working class into the electoral political field. It is radically
different from the demands for social rupture or class struggle, as they
are set out by Marx, for example, in the Manifesto of the Communist
Party of 1848. It is not a question of ending the French Revolution[3],
but of fulfilling its promises, of denying the "rights of man and of the
citizen" but of realizing them, of erasing democracy, but of making it
effective, for all, in a spirit of mutuality and sharing that will have
a decisive influence on the union demands of the future French workers'
movement, to the point that it is considered one of the inspirers of the
federative philosophy of Fernand Pelloutier's Bourses du travail[4].
So how could the man who claimed in Solution du problème social (1848)
to avoid the pitfalls of politics in order to resolve economic
contradictions with the help of a simple "financial" institution, the
"People's Bank" - the ancestor of modern mutual banks, a pioneering
experiment in the field of the social and solidarity economy (SSE)[5]-
agree to give an electoral helping hand to "reformist",
"parliamentarian" workers? How could he, who had been rejected, fifteen
years earlier, by both the party of the liberal bourgeoisie and the
imperial party - all of which ended up excluding him, ultimately forcing
him into exile, after having him thrown in prison - come to the aid of
people running in a biased electoral system where the games, whatever
one may say, are already decided?
Seven months after the Manifesto of the Sixty, the International
Workingmen's Association was founded with the slogan "The emancipation
of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves."
This is because Proudhon was obsessed by two things. First of all, he
wanted to see his ideas embodied in reality[6]. So he never bothered to
know who was going to realize them: the Assembly of 1848, Napoleon III,
workers like Tolain, who would participate in the International, to be
elected, finally, senator of the Seine, vengeful writers like Jules
Vallès[7]who would write the Red Poster, at the time of the Commune?
Basically, it mattered little to him, as long as he had the feeling that
the individuals or groups in question each brought, with their qualities
and their defects, his ideas, his projects, into the public square.
Then, Proudhon, an anti-dogmatic spirit, was quite capable of opening
himself to new proposals as long as they seemed to him to go in the
right direction, that of resolving the "contradictions of poverty" that
he had been denouncing since Philosophy of Poverty (1846). If we take
this point of view, his intellectual coherence is undeniable. It can be
summed up in a few words: to resolve the problem of poverty by a series
of radical reforms using all the non-violent institutional means at his
disposal. These institutions could be of different natures: economic,
social, political. He did not care. Gifted, moreover, with a gift for
the pen that was as much a matter of genius as of graphomania, he was
capable of granting, if he thought their cause was just, time to people
who came to him for help.
Meurisse Agency
It is therefore not surprising that he took care to support the demands
of these 60 workers from the Seine who came to see him, in the evening
of his life, when he was already very ill. Caught up in the game, he
even wrote a complete political program for the working class entitled
On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes (1865)[8]in which he
advocated the union of the working classes and the peasantry -
considered at the time as reactionary by Blanqui but which Proudhon, a
peasant of Besançon origin, greatly appreciated - and which was still
the majority class in France at that time. The Spanish revolutionaries
of 1936 would give, seventy years later, to this social, unitary vision,
a concrete revolutionary meaning. These men and women were, moreover,
more Proudhonian than has been said[9].
We too often forget, in fact, that the Spanish Revolution was nourished
by Proudhonian formulas according to which "the cause of the peasants is
the same as that of the workers of industry" and "the Marianne of the
fields is the counterpart of the Sociale of the cities"[10]. The idea of
"mutuality", applied to all social domains, which Proudhon affirms in On
the Political Capacity of the Working Classes that it is the future of
"working democracy", wishing to realize the ideal of the balance of
Justice, will serve as a compass, with Kropotkin's theory of mutual aid,
to the Spanish revolutionaries. The latter will even agree to
participate in a republican government, while refusing to seize the
"great regal ministries", doubtless underestimating the political and
institutional aspect of the Revolution. But there again it was a
position inherited from Proudhon's sometimes convoluted reflections on
this subject.
Whether he proclaimed, as in 1840, "property is theft!" or, as in 1862,
"property is freedom!", whether he walked part of the way with Napoleon
III or marched in concert with the workers of the Manifesto of the
Sixty, whether he inspired conservatives, liberals, reformists or
revolutionaries, Proudhon will have remained a man of the people,
evolving, but true to himself, eager to find, through the bric-a-brac of
general ideas, a concrete, effective response to the eternal problem of
social misery and human suffering.
Michael Paraire
WHEN THE DISCIPLES SURPASS THE OLD MASTER
For the historian René Berthier, the episode of the Manifesto of the
Sixty, in 1864, testifies to the surpassing of Proudhon by the
Proudhonian workers themselves. Although reformists, they were pushed by
necessity (growing industrialization) and by example (the nascent trade
unionism in England) to advocate strikes, a tactic that Proudhon refuted.
For the international workers' movement, 1864 was a pivotal year:
Lassalle died having set in motion a genuine German socialist party,
Tolain published the Manifesto of the Sixty, Proudhon wrote On the
Political Capacity of the Working Classes and the International
Workingmen's Association (IWA) was founded.
The conclusion of Political Capacity sets out the conditions for the
proletariat to achieve capacity:
The working class has come to consciousness of itself "from the point of
view of its relations with society and with the State," he says; "as a
collective, moral and free being, it distinguishes itself from the
bourgeois class";
She possesses an "idea", a notion "of her own constitution", she knows
"the laws, conditions and formulas of her existence";
But Proudhon asks himself whether "the working class is able to deduce,
for the organization of society, practical conclusions which are proper
to it." He answers in the negative[...].
However, on September 28, 1864, the IWA was founded in London, which
would show how wrong Proudhon was.[...]. He seems[...]to ignore the
reality of the workers' movement of his time.
From 1852 to the law on coalitions of May 25, 1864, countless strikes
shook the country for wage increases, the reduction of working hours,
poor working conditions, to protest against the dismissal of a worker in
1857 in Vicoigne, in the North. The resistance societies, repressed by
the authorities, often dissolved, were reconstituted under other names
and under other attributions: mutual aid societies, for example.[...].
The driving force used in factories increased fivefold between 1849 and
1869. Technical progress, machinery increased labor productivity and
reduced production costs. Work in factories expanded. And during this
period, the increase in wages did not follow that of the cost of living.
Real wages fell. The living conditions of workers deteriorated
considerably.[...].
From the point of view of the workers' project, the Political Capacity
is far below the Manifesto of the Sixty of 1864 which, at least, calls
for the constitution of workers' unions independent of the bosses,
addresses the fate of children in factories, etc.[...]
Ten years later, James Guillaume, a close friend of Bakunin, wrote a
book, Anarchy according to Proudhon[...]. It was a sort of
sorting[...]and commenting on "the part of Proudhon's theories which,
taken up in the IWA program, entered into social life". In short, the
anarchist movement of 1874 only referred to Proudhon selectively, and
only for the ideas he developed around 1848.[...]. The revolutionary
syndicalists, thirty years later, would prove no less perceptive than
the activists around Bakunin.
Rene Berthier
Excerpt from "About the Manifesto of the Sixty", Monde-nouveau.net.
To validate
[1]On Proudhon's dialectic as a theory of balance, of Justice and on its
difference with that of Marx, see Georges Gurvitch, Dialectic and
Sociology, Flammarion, 1962. In this text Georges Gurvitch explains well
how Proudhon's unifying, inclusive dialectic seeks to balance opposites,
to unite them, while Marx's exclusive dialectic radically opposes them
to each other (see the model of the class struggle in the thought of
historical materialism).
[2]"Manifesto of the Sixty", presentation by René Berthier, New World.
[3]Pierre Guiral, "Proudhon and the French Revolution", Historical
Annals of the French Revolution, no. 184, 1966, pp. 109-123.
[4]Lucien Febvre, "Four lessons on French trade unionism
(August-September and summer 1920)", Le Mouvement social, no. 238, 2012,
pp. 17-51.
[5]Laurent Gardin, "Proudhon, father of the social and solidarity
economy?", 10th meetings of the Inter-university Network of the ESS,
Luxembourg, June 3-4, 2010.
[6]Proudhon claimed to adhere to a theory he called "ideo-realism",
where primacy is clearly given to the idea over reality. This is a
legacy of the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte who proclaimed that
"Ideas lead the world". This distinguishes it from the economic and
historical materialism of Marx and Engels. See Pierre Ansart, Sociologie
de Proudhon, PUF, 1967, p. 144.
[7]Jean Bancal, Proudhon and the Commune, Self-management and socialism,
notebook no. 15, 1971, p. 37-81.
[8]This last work, which he had time to reread before the manuscript
went to the printers, was published shortly after Proudhon's death. In
it, he discusses the Manifesto of the Sixty with benevolence, asserting
that the only thing missing from this text, as from the nascent
proletariat, was one Idea, that of "Mutuality", of "Law", of "Justice",
applicable to all areas of social, political and economic life. It is
this Idea that he expounds throughout his work, which can be considered
his political testament.
[9]Marxist historiography having long dominated the field of
publications of a so-called "scientific" nature, the influence of the
thought of Proudhon and Kropotkin, in the advent of the Revolution of
1936-1939, has long been underestimated. It still remains so.
[10]Proudhon, On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes, chapter
II, Dentu publisher, 1865.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?1864-Le-Manifeste-des-Soixante-une-etape-pour-la-cause-ouvriere
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten