Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Quote by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Work

Property is Theft!: A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology

Property is Theft! is a collection of essays and treatises by the French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The book delves into Proudhon's ideas on property, labor, and the social order, offering a comprehensive look at his political philosophy. It includes seminal works such as 'What is Property?' and 'The Philosophy of Poverty', showcasing Proudhon's unique perspective on economic and social issues. more

Author

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) was a French political philosopher, writer, and considered the father of modern anarchism. In 1840, he published "What is Property?" where he famously declared "property is theft," which profoundly influenced socialist and anarchist thought. Proudhon advocated mutualism, opposed capitalist exploitation and state authority, and significantly influenced thinkers like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin. His works including "The Philosophy of Poverty" remain important texts in political philosophy and social theory. more

You May Also Like

“My bad head cannot adjust itself to the way things are.... If I want to depict spring, it has to be in wintertime; if I want to describe a beautiful landscape, I must be enclosed within walls; and I have said a hundred times that if I were put in the Bastille, there I would paint a picture of liberty.”

“The members of a body-politic call it "the state" when it is passive, "the sovereign" when it is active, and a "power" when they compare it with others of its kind. Collectively they use the title "people," and they refer to one another individually as "citizens" when speaking of their participation in the authority of the sovereign, and as "subjects" when speaking of their subordination to the laws of the state.”

“Quite generally, the familiar, just because it is familiar, is not cognitively understood. The commonest way in which we deceive either ourselves or others about understanding is by assuming something as familiar, and accepting it on that account; with all its pros and cons, such knowing never gets anywhere, and it knows not why.... The analysis of an idea, as it used to be carried out, was, in fact, nothing else than ridding it of the form in which it had become familiar.”