Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Proudhon. And again, "Instead of laws we would have
con t r act s. N0 I a ws wo u I d be passed e i the r by rna j 0 r i t Y
vote or unanimously. Each citizen,each commune or corporation,
would make its own laws."(37) The corollary
of con tract is exchange; people contract wi th each other
to exchange their products. Accordingly, Proudhon defines
mutualism as "service for service, product for
product. ."(38) Proudhon was not so much an opponent
oft h e cap ita lis tic rna r ke t s ystem as 0 find us t rialism•
He envisioned a society of numerous small and independent
producers, voluntar i ly contract ing to exchange
their products on an equitable basis. Where the nature
of production makes such a framework impossible,
Pro u d h 0 n a d v 0 cat e s a s ynd i c a listar rang emen t wh ere the
workers in each industry would own the means of production
in that industry. Relations between the syndicates
and other syndicates or individual producers are to be
handled in the same way as relations between individual
producers: exchange and contract. But for contract and
e x c hanget 0 berne ani ng f u I theremus t be pr i vat e owne r ­
ship; one cannot exchange what one does not own.
Proudhon, in fact, proclaims that property "is the only
power that can act as a counterweight to the State•••"
T h us, pro per t y he says, "i s the basis 0 f my s ystem 0 f
federation."(39) It is not surprising to find, therefore,
that Proudhon was in fact a bitter opponent of
communism, which he defined as "the exploitation of the
strong by the weak." Any society failing to recognize
the right of private property, he felt, must inevitably
breed a stUltifying rigidity and uniformity that is incompatible
with "the free exercise of our faculties, ••
• our noblest dreams, .•• our deepest feelings."(40)
On the quest ion of crime in an anarchist society,
Proudhon thought that contract was the sine qua non of
just ice, and that a fully contractual society would be a
fully just one. And he further believed, perhaps naively,
that a just society would alleviate much of the tenden
c y t.owar dand need for c rim ina I beha v i 0 r • The 0 c c a ­
sional anti-social individual, Proudhon thought, could
be handled through the method of voluntary reparation.
The c rim ina 1 w0 u 1 d b e askedt 0 rna kerepar a t ion to his
'victim, and the threat of being the target of public
disapprobation if he refused would all but insure compliance.
And since reparation accords the criminal "as
much respect as he lost through his crime..•[h]is repa
rat ion i sal so are h a b iIi tat ion." F ina II y, anyone
regularly violating the norms of the society, and refusing
to make reparation, what Proudhon terms the "hopelessly
obdurate scoundrel," can legitimately be subject-
11