>abandons anarchism and solves the puzzle of modern society with the Agro-Industrial Federation
>people listen to the mentally unstable kraut instead
>the 20th and 21st century become a Living Hell as a result

>VGH if only [FRINGE POLITICAL THEORY I JUST HEARD ABOUT ON DISCORD] succeeded I wouldn’t be working at McDonald’s right now

How many times are we going to do this?

>>17769949
He's right, if only the obscure and fictional modded HOI4 ideology known as "agrarian spartanism" succeeded, chud wouldn't be in his precarious situation

To be fair, I wouldn't call Proudhon mentally stable either.

>>17769966
Just like in my Paradox Map Painters(tm)

>>17769918 (OP)
Okay you haven't read Proudhon. In Agro-Industrial Federation he talks about anarchist federations. Now it should be noted that the classical anarchists had a rhetorical style of using governmentalist terminology for anarchist organization as a form of convincing the masses. "Federation" or the federative principle don't mean political Federations as in polsci but a free association of individuals.

All the classical Anarchists from Proudhon to Kropotkin, Bakunin to Malatesta advocated for associationalist Affinity groups. Where like minded individuals come together to complete a task/work on a project and any disagreement between people just results in disassociation. Basically people agree to do a thing and come together to do it rather then a random group of people being group together and then deciding on what to do. All the classical Anarchists were against any process which subordinates One to a binding decision making process.

See for the explanation of Proudhon's Federative Principle
https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/featured-articles/authority-liberty-and-the-federative-principle/
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-the-principle-of-federation

>>17769949
>>17769966
>>17769987
Samefagging chud

>>17770012
Proudhon very obviously abandoned anarchism in his later life. The Federative Principle itself, where he unveils the Agro-Industrial Federation, is simply the creation of federated, possibly sectoral unities who create authentic civil society via mutual economic assurance. Like if the AFL-CIO was the Chamber of Commerce, Federal Reserve, Secretary of Labor, Trade, Transport, Energy etc all in one.

Proudhon himself said that anarchism wasn't something you could ever have, only approximate; you read too much Shawn Wilbur, his revisionist neo-Proudhonian thought isn't what Proudhon actually thought or wanted; its more his attempt to make a synthesis of anarchism without adjectives. Its an entirely different project than Proudhonian federalism.

>>17770026
Your projecting governmentalist notions onto Proudhon's work. Wilbur alongside Cayce Jamil are the best Proudhonian scholars around. They have access to unrelease manuscripts, know the context Proudhon was writing in and are actively translating Proudhon's works. I wouldn't take 20th century revisionists or polemical strawmans of Proudhon's work seriously.

>>17770050
Many people other than Wilbur have access to those manuscripts, and speak French as a first language, and they all disagree with Wilbur's claims. He invents things to fit his viewpoint. The Federative Principle is pretty blatant and obvious in what it suggests; though Proudhon was a bit of an idiot and French supremacist, which shows heavily in that work. Its funny how he admonishes the United States for not being truly federal then struggles with the division of legislative and judiciary power and state sovereignty in the next instance. He re-invented liberal federalism but with public-private blended ownership, whether anarchoids like it or not.

>>17770063
>Many people other than Wilbur have access to those manuscripts, and speak French as a first language, and they all disagree with Wilbur's claims.
I've been in French Anarchist spaces and I don't see this. Even French sociologist don't even seem to disagree with him and Jamil. So, it seems your just making up stuff now.

>>17770071
You're the one making things up here. Even Wilbur himself has several posts on his website struggling to reconcile Proudhon's later works and the Federative Principle specifically with his earlier works. It doesn't bode well for Neo-Proudhonianism when the founder of the tradition itself doesn't actually have a coherent vision that unifies the entire body of work, despite having had access to 95%+ Proudhon's writings for the past 15 years.

Do you believe Switzerland is anarchist?

>>17770078
>You're the one making things up here. Even Wilbur himself has several posts on his website struggling to reconcile Proudhon's later works and the Federative Principle specifically with his earlier works.

Yeah, he later resolved this though after working with Jamil and other French sociologists. This was an issue back for him 5 years ago but not now.

>Do you believe Switzerland is anarchist?

No, But if you do a careful reading of the Federative Principle with the context in mind you would understand that Proudhon isn't advocating for a political system like Switzerland, but associationalist affinity groups instead.

>>17770085
He hasn't revised this. He's just obscured it. He has yet to actually present a Neo-Proudhonian theory that is totally complete or internally coherent. When things in Proudhon's work come up that contradict his preferred way of viewing things, he plays word games e.g "now here, Proudhon might be word for word describing a public-private partnership enforced by civil law, but in actuality, he wasn't, because I don't like those words so I'm just going to say Proudhon was playing a trick and really meant something else." It gets tedious. At a certain point, maybe Wilbur should accept what Proudhon did; you can't change the popular definition of things.

>that Proudhon isn't advocating for a political system like Switzerland
Correct.

>but associationalist affinity groups instead.
If using that language makes you feel special and revolutionary, whatever, but what he actually is advocating for is civil & commercial law directly administered by workers and consumers.

interesting discussion

>>17770090
>Proudhon might be word for word describing a public-private partnership enforced by civil law, but in actuality, he wasn't, because I don't like those words so I'm just going to say Proudhon was playing a trick and really meant something else." It gets tedious. At a certain point, maybe Wilbur should accept what Proudhon did; you can't change the popular definition of things.

Well as I said before, the classical anarchists had a rhetorical style of using governmentalist terminology for anarchist organization as a form of convincing the masses. People like Bakunin or Kropotkin (who are both people influenced by Proudhon) say this explicitly. And this is pretty well known in the scholarship. Kropotkin uses governmentalist language in his pamphlets and normie works but in his more in-depth work like Words of a Rebel he is talking about explicitly non-hierarchical organization. Same thing applies to Bakunin. Heck even people like Benjamin Tucker do this too.
(1/2)

>>17770115
>If using that language makes you feel special and revolutionary, whatever, but what he actually is advocating for is civil & commercial law directly administered by workers and consumers.

I don't want to come off as pretentious but I want to be precise with my language. What I'm saying is that Proudhon is advocating for an association where like minded individuals come together to complete a task/work on a project and any disagreement between people just results in disassociation. Basically people agree to do a thing and come together to do it rather then a random group of people being group together and then deciding on what to do. Like what Stirner, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Malatesta, etc... advocated for.

Also when Proudhon is talking about law in his works. He is using it in the sense of laws of gravity or natural law. These are emergent associations in a free society rather then being dictated by the Head or a process which subordinates One to a binding decision making process. Same thing applies to democracy. He uses democracy to mean the masses which was the common usage of that word of in that time.

He explicitly is against democracy here:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-unanimity
(2/2)