Over the course of several months from late 1849 through early 1850, French classical liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat and French anarcho-socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon conducted a lengthy debate on the nature and legitimacy of interest.
In 1879, an English translation (by American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker) appeared – but incomplete, and in an obscure venue.
Thus most of this debate has not been widely available in English since 1879; and parts of it (including Bastiat’s final reply to Proudhon) have never been translated into English until now.
Check out the Bastiat-Proudhon Debate.
{ 16 comments }
Heh, interestingly enough, I was working on a video where I modernize the debate about the proper compensation for borrowing a plane. Instead of the carpenter’s plane, I would use a dance pad, the same principles apply. The video goes:
Bob: hey Silas, can I have your dance pad?
Silas: well Bob, I can’t just GIVE it to you.
B: No no no, I just want to borrow it for a month or so.
S: Yeah, but then you’re going to wear it out, and at the end of the month, I’ll just have a worn-out dance pad. Why would I agree to that?
B: Okay, a valid point. After a month, I will either buy you a new pad, or repair your pad to its original condition, or give you enough money to buy a new pad, or give you enough money to pay someone to return it to its original condition.
S: Okay, so I’ll get the same dance pad back. But then, I barely know you. What if you just run off with it.
B: Another valid point. So, if you agree, I will either give you proof of an insurance policy against me not meeting my obligations, or escrow sufficient money for you to buy a new pad, AND after a month, I will either buy you a new pad, or repair your pad to its original condition, or give you enough money to buy a new pad, or give you enough money to pay someone to return it to its original condition.
S: So, I’m guaranteed to get a pad back, in its present condition. Good. But still, I was planning to actually do stuff with the pad, and if an opportunity ever comes up where I might want to use it, I’ll I won’t be able to use it like I had intended.
B: Yet another valid point. I would never ask you to give up such opporutnities without compensation. So, I will provide you with something capable of providing equivalent enjoyment should such an even occur, AND I will either give you proof of an insurance policy against me not meeting my obligations, or escrow sufficient money for you to buy a new pad, AND after a month, I will either buy you a new pad, or repair your pad to its original condition, or give you enough money to buy a new pad, or give you enough money to pay someone to return it to its original condition.
And on and on…
Thanks to M. Long for this and his many other efforts.
Link at “5. The House” is
“FB-PJP-DOI-II-6.htm”
but should be prolly
“FB-PJP-DOI-II-5.htm”
WTH is a “dance pad”?
Junker,
Thanks for catching the link error. Fixed!
hahahahha, “dance pad”. We libertarians are so geeky. no offense to Person.
M. Long,
Thank you for your response. We can all use an assist on catching link typos. Civilized, non? Regards, J.
This is much appriciated. Thanks.
One thing I really miss is a continuous single HTML file so that I am import it to my Kindle(ebook reader from Amazon), and in other ebook reading softwares too, and read it at comfort.
I still laugh every time I see the term “anarcho-socialist”.
I don’t believe there are any self-described “anarcho-socialists”. To many traditional anarchists, the phrase would seem redundant. In my understanding, its an umbrella term used by some libertarians to describe non-market anarchists.
In either case, I’m of the camp that agrees with Roderick Long that the terms capitalism and socialism have become anti-concepts or package deal terms, and therefore they should probably be avoided in discourse. This is part of the reason why I don’t use the term “anarcho-capitalism”.
I’m also of the opinion that the differences between the so-called “capitalist” and “socialist” schools of anarchism are often exaggerated, that the history of anarchism would suggest a middle ground (see the individualist anarchists) and that the debate consists mostly of semantics.
Hey sorry for previous comment, this book fits very well on my kindle(just have to copy paste it all in a big word doc).
@Yancey Ward
Why what’s so funny about Anarcho-Socialism? Its going to be possible once Socialist transform the human into a new human who won’t be possessive about its labor, and would readily give all the fruits of his labor without the use of any coercion.
I sense some E-sarcasm or E-facetiousness.
As I’ve stated before in debates, many early socialists supported the labor theory of property, I.E. the notion that you own the fruits of your labor, that property is justified on the basis of homesteading and labor. Where they tended to go wrong was in the damn labor theory of value, a separate yet related question.
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a sincere and well-read “anarcho-socialist” that believes that humans should not be possessive about their labor. Indeed, the centerpiece of their ideology is precisely that one should possess the products of their labor. Like I implied before, it’s the question of the value of labor that throws everything off.
As I’ve also argued, the concept that there is a positive obligation to appease the “needs” of others contradicts the notion that one owns the products of their labor. Hence the inherent conflict between Marxism and much of traditional anarchism (aside from the eggregious strategic blunder of Marx in advocating use of the state, a “dictatorship of the proletariet”, to reach a future stateless society).
As a market anarchist (or “anarcho-capitalist” if you prefer), I am a big fan of Proudhon and agree with his phrase “property is theft”. How can this here “capitalist” get away with such a heresy? Well, I think I understand the context of the statement and that it is not an absolute statement. Proudhon was of course refering to a particular mode of property aquisition, a particular derivative of property, not property per se or as a whole. That is, in my understanding, “property is theft” refers to property not derived from labor or homesteading.
So please, let us better understand the concepts we are dealing with before erecting straw men.
Love Roderick’s commentary. Hard to believe that these two giants of economics and political philosophy were capable of making the same dumb mistakes the rest of us internet denizens and armchair philosophers make.
Proudhon was of course refering to a particular mode of property aquisition, a particular derivative of property, not property per se or as a whole. That is, in my understanding, “property is theft” refers to property not derived from labor or homesteading.
Well, I understand their distinction between “property” and possessions, but possessions don’t seem extensive enough to sustain large-scale capitalist efforts.
Well I’m not making a distinction between property and possessions. I’m making a distinction between property as product of labor and property as a product of theft and institutionalized plunder. Or between naturally arising justly aquired private property and private property as a legal construct. They’re very different things, considering that a lot of current private property titles were preceded by theft and forced redistribution.
Proudhon’s view was of course warped by an LTV, but I think his views are much more conductive to private property then a superficial glance would indicate (particularly later in his life), and that many “socialists” often take him out of context to appease their preconcieved notions. I tend to think that there’s a lot of semantics over the term “private property” and that certain damnations of “private property” aren’t necessarily damnations of the products of labor.
That said, there are anarchists who think that communes must have their economies centrally planned and that property must be communal in nature…
In my understanding, in the context of anarchism, property being communal in nature seems to only fly if it’s truly voluntarily shared. Otherwise this is just some kind of state-enforced collectivism. I also don’t understand how one can reconcile central planning with anarchism, since anarchism as I understand it is the epitome of decentralization.
Mutualism is about as far in that direction as I can extend the olive branch. Some of the communist anarchists strike me as statists in anarchist clothing.
Comments on this entry are closed.