i was reading “socialism - from moses to lenin” when i got to the part describing bakunin’s praise of prouhdon. given the impression that prouhdon was a “free marketeer” (more cobdenist than cobden[:P]) and bakunin was basicly a planned economy socialist, shouldnt bakunin be tearing this guy’s eyes out? basicly by cherry-picking his work many libertarians have tried to do the old “this guy is on our side” trick.
Proudhon was no libertarian.
that is beside the point, however. we are talking about the economic positions. anyone who genuine believes in property (even non-sticky) believes in inequality of wealth. according to social anarchists like bakunin, the root cause of evil is the dinamic nature of private property transactions that turn into “private tyranny”. they believe that mutualists like karson are naive and that markets always lead to oppression. hence i’m surprise that bakunin didn’t hate his mentor’s guts.
I’m not so sure Carson is naive.
Anyways, this is a weak argument on your part. Whether Bakunin hated Proudhon, or kissed his ring to gain some other advantage, is irrelevant. You can’t really make an argument out of Bakunin’s lack of revulsion.
I’m planning on reading What is Property Soon, as I know very little about Proudhon, except some quotes and what not.
i didn’t say he is naive. i said planned economy socialists think he is. whats even funnier is that tucker, being a follower of prohdoun himself, paints a warped picture by making it sound like anarchists are free-market individualists.