There is a lot of interesting material in Proudhon’s unpublished manuscripts, not all of which is vital to understanding his project, but there are two sets of texts in particular that any serious student should at least be aware of—if only to know what we don’t know. […]
This is the most complete and exact map that has been drawn of the human soul to date; consequently, and if our title is true, it is the system of the world. Any man can grasp the whole of it, but no one has sounded its depths. […]
It’s no very great leap from the position I had already taken in “A Schematic Anarchism” to the one I’ve been exploring in Proudhon’s manuscripts. In general, I have been proposing that we shift our approach from endless, more or less interminable arguments about whether or not a given ideology or practice is anarchism or not to analyses of proposed anarchisms that ask: “If we treat X as an instance of anarchism, in what sense is that claim true and how does it compare to other instances?” The answers to that question ought to demonstrate that some of the proposed anarchisms only qualify in the most trivial senses, on the basis of the most implausible explanations, while others can be plausibly situated among the ranks of anarchisms on the basis of a variety of plausible narratives. […]
The local landscape is woven into the work that appears here. My daily walks through the parks near my home are an explicit part of the process in the “Rambles in the Fields of Anarchist Individualism,” but, in general, the out-of-doors is where the fine points tend to get worked out. Last year, I published a calendar of photographs taken in several local green spaces. This year, I limited things to a single park and focused on the cycle of gradual, but steady change that takes place through the year.
[…]
Vous avez à cœur la prospérité de L’EN DEHORS. Bravo ! Achetez-en donc deux numéros là où il est en vente, ou souscrivez à un abonnement de propagande, ou trouvez-nous d’ici six mois un nouvel […]
It is this lack of definitions that establishes, as we will see, that Economy has been unable thus far to posit axioms, to demonstrate a method, to indicate its limits, and make known its object, that is to say to respond to that question, without which it cannot rank among the sciences: What is your name? Who are you? […]
This is a collection of another Twitter thread, in the course of which I’ve been sharing some reminiscences on how “neo-proudhonian” mutualism emerged and how those who have adopted the label or encounter it in anarchist circles might understand the particular gambits involved in its construction. These things necessarily get away from us, once loosed upon the world—and that’s fine, perhaps simply as it should be—but I suspect they may serve others better if they retain some of the character of their origins. […]
A ceux qui nous méconnaissent. On nous nuit par excès de zèle, on nous accuse parce qu’on nous méconnaît, et de tous parts ce ne sont que clameurs comme si nous voulions renverser le monde […]
REPONSES La force physique et l’autorité Si la force musculaire constituait réellement une supériorité, ayant pour conséquence logique et nécessaire la domination, l’homme ne serait évidemment pas le roi de la création. Tant d’animaux la […]
1-2. — In the Libertarian Labyrinth (1994-2012 (more or less)) In the beginning of the mutualist “renaissance,” we maintained a dual project, elaborating what was necessarily new theory, while searching through the traces of the […]
Copyright © 2024 | MH Magazine WordPress Theme by MH Themes