Monday, September 12, 2011

Karl Marx, CAPITAL, Volume 1, Chapter 2, "EXCHANGE", Biographical Notes (4) of authors referred to -

DAVID RICARDO (1772-1823):

David Ricardo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Ricardo

Classical economics


19 April 1772


11 September 1823 (aged 51)




Smith · Bentham


Ricardian Socialists · John Stuart Mill · Marx · Sraffa ·Barro


Ricardian equivalence, labour theory of value, comparative advantage, law of diminishing returns, Economic rent[1]

David Ricardo (19 April 1772 – 11 September 1823) was an English-Portuguese political economist, often credited with systematising economics, and was one of the most influential of the classical economists, along with Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill.[2] He was also a member of Parliament, businessman, financier and speculator, who amassed a considerable personal fortune. Perhaps his most important contribution was the law ofcomparative advantage, a fundamental argument in favour of free trade among countries and of specialisation among individuals. Ricardo argued that there is mutual benefit from trade (or exchange) even if one party (e.g. resource-rich country, highly-skilled artisan) is more productive in every possible area than its trading counterpart (e.g. resource-poor country, unskilled laborer), as long as each concentrates on the activities where it has a relative productivity advantage.[3]

Personal life

Born in England , Ricardo was the third of 17 children of a Sephardic Jewish family of Portuguese origin who had recently relocated fromHolland. His father was a successful stockbroker.

At age 21, Ricardo eloped with a Quaker, Priscilla Anne Wilkinson, leading to estrangement from his family. His father disowned him and his mother apparently never spoke to him again.

Without family support, he started his own business as a stockbroker, in which he became quite successful thanks to the connections he made when working with his father.

During the Battle of Waterloo, just like Nathan Mayer Rothschild, he bet against the French victory and invested in British securities. By the time he retired from the Exchange at the age of 43, his fortune was estimated at about £600,000. He then purchased and moved toGatcombe Park, an estate in Gloucestershire.

At the time of his marriage, Ricardo disconnected from Judaism and became a Unitarian.[4] He had eight children, including three sons, of whom Osman Ricardo (1795–1881; MP for Worcester 1847–1865) and another David Ricardo (1803–1864, MP for Stroud 1832–1833), became members of parliament, while the third, Mortimer Ricardo, served as an officer in the Life Guards and was a deputy lieutenant forOxfordshire. He was one of the original members of The Geological Society.[4] His daughter was Sarah Ricardo-Porter, who married George R. Porter and was an author in her own right (e.g. "Conversations in Arithmetic'").

Ricardo became interested in economics after reading Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1799 on a vacation to the English resort ofBath. This was Ricardo's first contact with economics. He wrote his first economics article at age 37 and within another ten years he reached the height of his fame.

In 1819, Ricardo took a seat in the House of Commons, representing Portarlington, an Irish rotten borough. He held the seat, which had initially been made available to him by his friend Richard "Conversation" Sharp, until his death in 1823. In 1846, his nephew John Lewis Ricardo, MP for Stoke-on-Trent, advocated free trade and the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Ricardo was a close friend of James Mill, who encouraged him in his political ambitions and writings about economics. Other notable friends included Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Malthus, with whom Ricardo had a considerable debate (in correspondence) over such things as the role of landowners in a society. He also was a member of London's intellectuals, later becoming a member of Malthus' Political Economy Club, and a member of the King of Clubs.


Main article: Ricardian economics

Value theory

Ricardo's most famous work is his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817). Ricardo opens the first chapter with a statement of the labour theory of value. Later in this chapter, he demonstrates that prices do not correspond to this value. He retained the theory, however, as an approximation. The labour theory of value states that the relative price of two goods is determined by the ratio of the quantities of labour required in their production. His labour theory of value, however, required several assumptions: 1- both sectors have the same wage rate and the same profit rate; 2- the capital employed in production is made up of wages only; 3- the period of production has the same length for both goods. Ricardo himself realised that the second and third assumptions were quite unrealistic and hence admitted two exceptions to his labour theory of value: 1- production periods may differ; 2- the two production processes may employ instruments and equipment as capital and not just wages, and in very different proportions. Ricardo continued to work on his value theory to the end of his life.

But the first chapter is but the introduction to a long book that discusses back and forth an extended series of comparisons and contrasts of the various points of views and of Ricardo's own reasoning.

In the chapter "On Value and Riches,"[5] Ricardo makes effort to illustrate that exchange value is not the same as "value in use".[6] In this way one can factor two often contradictory results. Point 2, above, that the capital employed in production must be made up of wages only for his value theory to hold, is answered by this: that production may be made up of capital and machinery, but it doesn't change the principle (which he attributes to Adam Smith) that he tries to lay out in this chapter.[7] Machinery may add to one measure of value beyond almost all measure without adding one penny to the other measure of value. In this way, one is able, Ricardo seems to show, to factor out somewhat contradictory assumptions which if confounded lead to equally contradictory results. By making all things perfectly clear, or in attempting to, Mr. Ricardo, seeks to resolve some of those ills of the democratic society in which he lived in so far as reason, and action, could resolve them. In this pursuit, he took action, sitting in parliament, moving with his stirring, and amusing, speeches the inner policies of the British Empire.

The key point that Ricardo seems to make, though, is something like this: Accumulation of capital adds riches without decreasing the value of things to be traded, which may bring the various economic actors to a win-win. Ricardo first attempts to show that new riches are not adding as much value as one would think because they are always decreasing somewhat from the exchangeable value of what was produced. The decreasing value in exchange as value-in-use increases he extrapolates to infer that the sum world total of value in exchange is a fixed constant. Therefore, in the growth of the global economy, the first-world countries, he states, will begin to lose value per trade, even to the purely theoretical extent of taking from the capital base. Yet, Ricardo notes that with more value-in-use for the rich and the poor, both will likely obtain more security as the aggression of competition is mitigated by physical economic growth. Adam Smith had thought that due to its effect on value, the growth of wealth of the poor beyond subsistence levels is likely to take from the overall wealth of the society. All economists (neoliberal through progressive) still worry about that and so they weaken the wealth of the poor to maintain economic growth. Ricardo shows this as unnecessary when we measure value in exchange together with the growth of value-in-riches, rather than by the monopolization value. The extreme aspects of competition then leave, for the rich and poor alike, an appearance of the growth of wealth, yet without the actual result of it. Taking a step back and noticing the growth of actual value-in-use may allow people as corporations and laborers, both rich and poor, to realize this and see a way and means forward.


Ricardo is responsible for developing theories of rent, wages, and profits. He defined rent as "the difference between the produce obtained by the employment of two equal quantities of capital and labor." The model for this theory basically said that while only one grade of land is being used for cultivation, rent will not exist, but when multiple grades of land are being utilized, rent will be charged on the higher grades and will increase with the ascension of the grade. As such, Ricardo believed that the process of economic development, which increased land utilization and eventually led to the cultivation of poorer land, benefited first and foremost the landowners because they would receive the rent payments either in money or in product.

In a careful analysis of the effects of different forms of taxation, Ricardo concludes in chapters 10 and 12 that a tax on land value, equivalent to a tax on the land rent, was the only form of taxation that would not lead to price increases; it is paid by the landlord, who is not able to pass it on to a tenant. He stated that the poorest grade land in use has no (land) rent and so pays no land value tax; as prices are determined at this marginal site for the whole economy, prices will not be increased by a land value tax. His analysis distinguishes between rent of (unimproved) land and rent associated with capital improvements such as buildings.

§ Accumulation of Inequality of Distribution of varied quantities of Accumulatable Scarce Necessary Means of Production.

Ricardo's concept of rent is laid out in his book Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Due to variation in scarcity of land (or some other accumulatable scarce necessities of varied utility), some land pays a higher monopoly value due to its scarcity than other land. This return on investment is higher than what one would otherwise expect based simply on the value and scarcity of the produce; this return on investment comes from the incident of ownership that allows a monopoly price to be paid. Such premium over real social value that an individual is able to reap due to incident of ownership constitutes real value to an individual but is at best[8] a paper monetary return to society. The portion of such purely individual benefit, and exclusively that portion, that accrues to scarce, accumulatable resources such as land or gold or houses, over and above any socially beneficial exchange, Ricardo labels Rent.

If all land were equally situated, however scarce, one could determine that all market exchange of the produce thereof was free and equal and that the exact value of the trade was conveyed simultaneously to both parties and to society. In the case of increasing scarcity of the land of higher absolute utility, the free market principle fails to either properly measure or convey value. This gap between personal value accrual and social value accrual, in the case of land, is Ricardian Rent. Rent therefore constitutes value for nothing and as such constitutes a loss to society above maximum production, and one that increases at a faster rate than the decline in production that comes from the scarcity of the land, as land becomes more scarce. Proposals to solve this by various types of land tax are explored further. The key problem then, Ricardo discusses, would be to find a tax that is able to maximally differentiate between tax on profit and tax on such purely Ricardian rent. No easy task, he points out, as in the case of how one differentiates between basic land return, that portion that constitutes such excess above social productivity that he labels rent, and the portion that comes from non-rent producing capital investment in fertilizer, irrigation, deep plowing and land improvements of all types, barns, etc.

§ Malthus's criticism and Extrapolation of the problem of Ricardian Rent

In demonstrating that Ricardian Rent constitutes value for nothing (Ricardo was momentarily neglecting Say's Law that all savings by-definition-equals investment), Ricardo overlooks that such value-for-nothing doesn't necessarily disappear upon "mis-payment" to a landlord. This is what Malthus, Ricardo's personal friend and intellectual opponent, states in his own book on Rent, one of his works that expounds from a point of view of Malthus's Surplus Value theories, rather than Malthus's earlier and more quoted Scarcity Value Theory. Thus, says Malthus, Rent, however misplaced, constitutes a prime source of savings and investment for the future. We need then, if contented by Malthus, only look for such portion of Ricardian Rent that due to its over-investment (due to its miscalculation) represents lost economic value to the society as a whole. Malthus' Criticism of Ricardian Rent does not in Malthus' book on Rent touch on this problem of Ricardian over-investment as expounded by Malthus (the General Glut controversy); rather, in his later works, Malthus does so. So: to Ricardo, Economic Rent is a surplus of individual investors' paper profit (which has its value in control over resources rather than directly in the resources themselves) over societal gain. As such, it does not represent any gain but rather an unearned transfer of wealth. To Malthus, there is material gain created in the re-investment which is rent, but at some point such gain may as says Ricardo in regards to the paper profit he believes Economic Rent to be, be in excess of social utility.

Earlier writers touched on Economic Rent too. Ricardo advises caution in responses to the problem of Economic Rent To be clear, the topic of Economic Rent, as expounded by Ricardo, was by earlier writers such as Smith. Ricardo's book forms a sort of textbook of such earlier expounded theories, in which he adds his own analysis while comparing and contrasting different views and pointing out the flaws in them. Ricardo, after spending many chapters contented with this view of Rent, ascribes it to Smith and then says it is true but probably not so important in an expanding economy and measures to address it should be marked with caution as they would likely produce different effects in different situations.[9]

Trade theory and policy


Like Adam Smith, Ricardo was also an opponent of protectionism for national economies, especially for agriculture. He believed that the British "Corn Laws"—tariffs on agriculture products—ensured that less-productive domestic land would be harvested and rents would be driven up. (Case & Fair 1999, pp. 812, 813). Thus, the surplus would be directed more toward feudal landlords and away from the emerging industrial capitalists. Since landlords tended to squander their wealth on luxuries, rather than investments, Ricardo believed that the Corn Laws were leading to the stagnation of the British economy. Parliament repealed the Corn Laws in 1846.

Comparative Advantage

§ The Problem of Competitive Advantage

Ricardo extrapolates the problem of monopolistic rent on the land itself to other situations/resources that are fundamentally scarce: the buildings that sit on the land, due to the long time frame of use and large lump-sum cost of building new ones; or gold, which is a also partial monopoly due to its scarcity, and which is not consumable. He then questions whether all trade has a fundamental problem of inequality that is inevitably hard to bridge. This is the problem of absolute competitive advantage—where one party has an unbridgeable competitive advantage due to wealth or productive advantages in every field. If so, can trade profitably continue? Ricardo solves this with Comparative Advantage.

§ Comparative Advantage: The Solution

This book, Principles of Political Economy, introduces the theory of comparative advantage. According to Ricardo's theory, even if a country could produce everything more efficiently than another country, it would reap gains from specializing in what it was best at producing and trading with other nations. (Case & Fair, 1999: 812–818). Ricardo believed that wages should be left to free competition, so there should be no restrictions on the importation of agricultural products from abroad.

The benefits of comparative advantage are both distributional and related to improved real income. Within Ricardo's theory, distributional effects implied that foreign trade could not directly affect profits, because profits change only in response to the level of wages. The effects on income are always beneficial because foreign trade does not affect value.

Comparative advantage forms the basis of modern trade theory, reformulated as the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, which states that a country has a comparative advantage in the production of a product if the country is relatively well-endowed with inputs that are used intensively in producing the product. (Case & Fair 1999, p. 822). See the section The Ricardian theory of international trade of this page for another side of the theoretical development.

The theory of comparative advantage as he described it seems to be that both those rich in ability and the poor alike concentrate each their own analytical powers on meeting the needs and abilities of the richer, more skilful party to an otherwise unequal exchange and thereby both benefit. Ideas often extrapolated are: that both benefit equally; and that somehow in such exchange each nation, or person, is enabled to focus on its own area of real specialisation in a bi-directional equal trade—but we only start with an idea of purely comparative specialisation in one direction.

For the contemporary development of Ricardo's idea on international trade, see the section The Ricardian theory of international trade in the part His Legacy and Influence.

Ricardian equivalence

Another idea associated with Ricardo is Ricardian equivalence, an argument suggesting that in some circumstances a government's choice of how to pay for its spending (i.e., whether to use tax revenue or issue debt and run a deficit) might have no effect on the economy. Ironically, while the proposition bears his name, he does not seem to have believed it. Economist Robert Barro is responsible for its modern prominence.

Ricardo's theories of wages and profits

Some credit Ricardo with the concepts behind the so-called Iron Law of Wages, that wages naturally tend to a subsistence level.[10][11][12]Others dispute the assignment to Ricardo of this idea.

Ricardo believed that in the long run, prices reflect the cost of production, and referred to this long run price as a Natural price. The natural price of labour was the cost of its production, that cost of maintaining the labourer. If wages correspond to the natural price of labour, then wages would be at subsistence level. However, due to an improving economy, wages may remain indefinitely above subsistence level:

Notwithstanding the tendency of wages to conform to their natural rate, their market rate may in an improving society, for an indefinite period, be constantly above it; for no sooner may the impulse, which an increased capital gives to a new demand for labor, be obeyed, than another increase of capital may produce the same effect; and thus, if the increase of capital be gradual and constant, the demand for labour may give a continued stimulus to an increase of people....

It has been calculated, that under favourable circumstances population may be doubled in twenty-five years; but under the same favourable circumstances, the whole capital of a country might possibly be doubled in a shorter period. In that case, wages during the whole period would have a tendency to rise, because the demand for labour would increase still faster than the supply. (On the Principles of Political Economy, Chapter 5, "On Wages").

In his Theory of Profit, Ricardo stated that as real wages increase, real profits decrease because the revenue from the sale of manufactured goods is split between profits and wages. He said in his Essay on Profits, "Profits depend on high or low wages, wages on the price of necessaries, and the price of necessaries chiefly on the price of food."

His Legacy and Influence

David Ricardo's ideas had a tremendous influence on later developments in economics. With his highly logical arguments, he has become the theoretical father of the classical political economy. Schumpeter coined an expression Ricardian vice, which indicates that rigorous logic does not provide a good economic theory.[13] This criticism applies also to most neoclassical theories, which make heavy use of mathematics, but are, according to him, theoretically unsound, because the conclusion being drawn does not logically follow from the theories used to defend it.[citation needed]

Ricardian Socialists

Unequal Exchange

Chris Edward includes Emmanuel's Unequal Exchange theory among variations of neo-Ricardian trade theory.[14] Arghiri Emmanuel argued that the Third World is poor because of the international exploitation of labour.[15]

The unequal exchange theory of trade has been influential to the (new) dependency theory.[16]


After the rise of the 'neoclassical' school, Ricardo's influence declined temporarily. It was Piero Sraffa, the editor of the Collected Works of David Ricardo[17] and the author of seminal Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities,[18] who resurrected Ricardo as the originator of another strand of economics thought, which was effaced with the arrival of the neoclassical school. The new interpretation of Ricardo and Sraffa's criticism against the marginal theory of value gave rise to a new school, now named neo-Ricardian or Sraffian school. Major contributors to this school includes Luigi Pasinetti (1930–), Pierangelo Garegnani (1930–), Ian Steedman (1941–), Georffrey Harcourt (1931–), Heinz Kurz (1946–), Neri Salvadori (1951–), Pier Paolo Saviotti (-) among others. See also Neo-Ricardianism. Neo-Ricardian school is sometimes seen to be a composing element of Post-Keynesian economics.

Evolutionary growth theory

Several distinctive groups have sprung out of the neo-Ricardian school. One is the evolutionary growth theory, developed notably by Luigi Pasinetti, J.S. Metcalfe, Pier Paolo Saviotti, and Koen Frenken and others.[19][20]

The first step came from Pasinetti.[21][22] He argued that the demand of any commodity came to stagnate and frequently decline as Engel curve shows it. The commodities are produced by each industry with different growth rate of labour productivity. The consequences are different rate of growth of output and employment. To any economic development structural change is invitable. If the commodity variety remains constant, demand saturation occurs for any rich eceonmy. Introduction of new commodities (goods and services) is necessary to evade from economic stagnation.

The problem of demand saturation and satiety became one of the most topical themes of evolutionary economists. Many articles and books have been written.[23][24][25][26][27]

As for the causes and mechanisms of demand saturation, I, Steedman pointed that time plays as important a role as income.[28][29] Indeed, the neocalssical economics admits monetary budget as unique constraint, but for any busy person the time counts as much as price to enjoy the purchased commodities. Another constraints, such as house surface, are effective for example in the Japanese economy, where people live in a "rabbit hutch."

Demand saturation problems are pursured, parallel to evolutionary economists, by Aoki and Yoshikawa[30][31] and other Japanese reserchers.[32][33]

The Ricardian theory of international trade

The Ricardian theory of comparative advantage also became a basic constituent of neoclassical trade theory. Any undergraduate course in trade theory includes expansions of Ricardo's example of four numbers in for form of a two commodity, two country model. Ricardo intended to show by this classic example the benefits of free trade from comparative advantage, as in his example there is one country that is more proficient in producing both commodities relative to the other country. Adam Smith would likely reason, by logic of absolute advantage, that there would be no incentive for trade between the two countries. This model was expanded to many-country and many-commodity cases and also to include migration of people between countries. Major general results were obtained by the beginning of 1960's by McKenzie[34][35] and Jones,[36] including his famous formula.

Contemporary theories

Ricardo's idea was even expanded to the case of continuum of goods by Dornbusch, Fischer, and Samuelson[37] This formulation is employed for example by Matsuyama[38] and others.

Neo-Ricardian trade theory

Inspired by Piero Sraffa, a new strand of trade theory emerged and was named neo-Ricardian trade theory. The main contributors include Ian Steedman (1941–) and Stanley Metcalfe (1946–). They have criticised neoclassical international trade theory, namely the Heckscher-Ohlin model on the basis that the notion of capital as primary factor has no method of measuring it before the determination of profit rate (thus trapped in a logical vicious circle).[39][40] This was a second round of the Cambridge capital controversy, this time in the field of international trade.[41]

The merit of neo-Ricardian trade theory is that input goods are explicitly included to the analytical framework. This is in accordance with Sraffa's idea that any commodity is a product made by means of commodities. The limit of their theory is that the analysis is limited to small country cases. The wage of the Rest of the World is determined by assumption and there is no internal mechanism which generates international wage differences. In this sense the neo-Ricardian trade theory lacks international value theory.[42]

Ricardo-Sraffa trade theory

Traded intermediate goods

Ricardian trade theory ordinarily assumes that the labor is the unique input. This is a great deficiency as trade theory, for the intermediate goods occupy the major part of the world international trade. Yeats[43] found that 30% of world trade in manufacturing is intermediate inputs. Bardhan and Jafee[44] found that intermediate inputs occupy 37 to 38% in the imports to the US for years 1992 and 1997, whereas the percentage of intrafirm trade grew from 43% in 1992 to 52% in 1997.

McKenzie[34]:177–9 and Jones[45] emphasised the necessity to expand the theory to the cases of traded inputs. Paul Samuelson[46] coined a term Sraffa bonus to name the gains from trade of inputs.

Theoretical developments

John Chipman observed in his survey that McKenzie stumbled upon the questions of intermediate products and discovered that "introduction of trade in intermediate product necessitates a fundamental alteration in classical analysis."[47] It took may years until recently Y. Shiozawa[48] succeeded to remove this deficiency. The Ricardian trade theory was now reconstructed to include intermediate input trade in a very general case of many countries and many goods. This new theory is sometimes called Ricardo-Sraffa trade theory.

It is emphasised that the Ricardian trade theory now provides a general theory which includes trade of intermediates such as materials, fuel and machine tools. The traded intermediate goods are then used as inputs of productions. Capital goods are nothing other than inputs to the productions. Thus, in the Ricardian trade theory, capital goods moves freely from country to country. Trade in capital goods may transmit the benefit of technological advances across trading countries.[49] Labor is the unique factor of production that remains immobile in the country of its origin.

The neoclassical Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson theory assumes only production factors and finished goods. It has not the concept of intermediate goods. Therefore, it is the Ricardo-Sraffa trade theory that provides theoretical bases for the topics as outsourcing, fragmentation[50] and intra-firm trade.[51]

Recent episode

In a blog post of 28 April 2007, Gregory Mankiw compared Ricardian theory and Heckscher-Ohlin theory and stood by the Ricardian side.[52]Mankiw argued that Ricardian theory is more realistic than the Heckscher-Ohlin theory as the latter assumes that capital does not move from country to country. Mankiw's argument contains a logical slip, for the traditional Ricardian trade theory does not admit any inputs. Shiozawa's result saves Mankiw from his slip.[42]

Criticism of the Ricardian theory of trade

Ricardo's plea for free trade received attacks from those people who think trade restriction is necessary. Uta Patnaike claims that Ricardian theory of international trade contains a logical fallacy. Ricardo assumed that in both countries two goods are producible and actually are produced, but developed and underdeveloped countries often trade those goods which are not producible in their own country. For example, many Northern countries do not produce tropical fruits. In these cases, one cannot define which country has comparative advantage.[53]

Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is also flawed in that it assumes production is continuous and absolute. In the real world, events outside the realm of human control (e.g. natural disasters) can disrupt production. In this case, specialisation could cripple a country that depends on imports from foreign, naturally disrupted countries. For example, if an industrially based country trades its manufactured goods to an agrarian country in exchange for agricultural products, a natural disaster in the agricultural country (e.g. drought) may cause an industrially based country to starve.


Ricardo's publications included:

§ The High Price of Bullion, a Proof of the Depreciation of Bank Notes (1810), which advocated the adoption of a metallic currency.

§ Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock (1815), which argued that repealing the Corn Laws would distribute more wealth to the productive members of society.

§ On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), an analysis that concluded that land rent grows as population increases. It also clearly laid out the theory of comparative advantage, which argued that all nations could benefit from free trade, even if a nation was less efficient at producing all kinds of goods than its trading partners.

His works and writings were collected in:

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Piero Sraffa with the Collaboration of M.H. Dobb (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005), 11 vols. This Set Contains The Following Titles:

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 1 Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 2 Notes on Malthus

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 3 Pamphlets and Papers 1809–1811

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 4 Pamphlets and Papers 1815–1823

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 6 Letters 1810–1815

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 7 Letters 1816–1818

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 8 Letters 1819 – June 1821

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 9 Letters 1821–1823

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 10 Biographical Miscellany

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 11 General Index


1. ^ Miller, Roger LeRoy. Economics Today. Fifteenth Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. page 559

2. ^ Sowell, Thomas (2006). On classical economics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

3. ^ Roberts, Paul Craig (2003-8-28), "The Trade Question",Washington Times

4. ^ a b Sraffa, Piero, David Ricardo (1955), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo: Volume 10, Biographical Miscellany, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 434,ISBN 0-521-06075-3

5. ^ Principles of Political Economy, Chapter 20

6. ^ Principles, Ch.20

7. ^ Principles, Ch.20, last two paragraphs

8. ^ On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation London: John Murray, Albemarle-Street, by David Ricardo, 1817 (third edition 1821) – Chapter 6, On Profits: paragraph 28, "Thus, taking the former . . ." and paragraph 33, "There can, however . . ."

9. ^ Chapter 18 of Principles

10. ^ "English economist who gave systematized, classical form to the rising science of economics in the 19th century. His laissez-faire doctrines were typified in his Iron Law of Wages, which stated that all attempts to improve the real income of workers were futile and that wages perforce remained near the subsistence level.

11. ^ John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics in Perspective, "Returning to wages, Ricardo, in another of his greatly quoted passages, says that they are 'That price which is necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without either increase or diminution.' This thought, as the Iron Law of Wages, was to enter into a history extending far beyond formal economics...", p. 84, Houghton Mifflin, 1987, ISBN 0-395-35572-9; the Ricardo quote above is referenced to page 93 of The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, edited by Piero Sraffa, Cambridge University Press, 1951

12. ^ The Columbia House Encyclopedia, "Ricardo...holds that wages tend to stabilize around the subsistence level...", Columbia University Press, 1983, ISBN 0-231-05678-8.

13. ^ Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, (published posthumously, ed. Elisabeth Boody Schumpeter), 1954. p.569 and p.1171. Schumpeter also criticized J. M. Keynes for committing the same Ricardian vice.

14. ^ Chris Edwards 1985 The Fragmented World: Competing Perspectives on Trade, Money and Crisis, London and New York: Methuen. Chapter 4.

15. ^ Emmanuel, Arghiri (1972), Unequal exchange; a study of the imperialism of trade, New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. [page needed], ISBN 0-85345-188-5

16. ^ Palma, G (1978), "Dependency: A formal theory of underdevelopment or a methodology for the analysis of concrete situations of underdevelopment?", World Development 6 (7–8): 881–924, doi:10.1016/0305-750X(78)90051-7

17. ^ Piero Sraffa and M.H. Dobb, editors (1951–1973). The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. Cambridge University Press, 11 volumes.

18. ^ Sraffa, Piero 1960, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press.

19. ^ Pasinetti, Luisi 1981 Structural change and economic growth, Cambridge Unoversity Press. J.S. Metcalfe and P.P. Saviotti (eds.), 1991, Evolutionary Theories of Economic and Technological Change, Harwood, 275 pages. J.S. Metcalfe 1998, Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, Routledge, London. Frenken, K., Van Oort, F.G., Verburg, T., Boschma, R.A. (2004). Variety and Regional Economic Growth in the Netherlands – Final Report (The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs), 58 p. (pdf)

20. ^ Saviotti, Pier Paolo; Frenken, Koen (2008), "Export variety and the economic performance of countries", Journal of Evolutionary Economics 18 (2): 201–218, doi:10.1007/s00191-007-0081-5

21. ^ Pasinetti, Luigi L. (1981), Structural change and economic growth: a theoretical essay on the dynamics of the wealth of nations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. [page needed], ISBN 0-521-27410-9

22. ^ Pasinetti, Luigi L. (1993), Structural economic dynamics: a theory of the economic consequences of human learning, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. [page needed], ISBN 0-521-43282-0

23. ^ Andersen, Esben Sloth (2001), "Satiation in an evolutionary model of structural economic dynamics", Journal of Evolutionary Economics 11: 143–164, doi:10.1007/PL00003852

24. ^ Andersen, Esben Sloth 2007 "Innovation and demand," Horst Hanusch and Andreas Pyka, Elgar companion to neo-Schumpterian economics, Chap. 47, 754–765.

25. ^ Pier Paolo Saviotti; Saviotti, Paolo (1996). Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. [page needed]. ISBN 1-85278-774-0.

26. ^ Saviotti, Pier Paolo (2001), "Variety, growth and demand", Journal of Evolutionary Economics 11: 119–142,doi:10.1007/PL00003853

27. ^ Witt, Ulrich (Ed.) 2001 Escaping Satiation: The Demand Side of Economic Growth (Hardcover, Springer, September 6, 2001. Witt, Ulrich 2001 "Consumption, demand and economic growth- an introduction," in Witt, Ulrich (Ed.) 2001.

28. ^ Steedman, Ian 2001a Consumption takes time: implications for economic theory. Routledge, London.

29. ^ Steedman, Ian (2007), "What Shall I do? (or Why Consumer Theory Should Focus on Time-Use and Activities, Rather than on Commodities)", Advances in Austrian Economics 10: 31–40,doi:10.1016/S1529-2134(07)10002-8

30. ^ Aoki, M (2002), "Demand saturation-creation and economic growth", Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 48 (2): 127–154, doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00229-3

31. ^ Yoshikawa, Hiroshi; Aoki, Masanao (2007). Reconstructing macroeconomics: a perspective from statistical physics and combinatorial stochastic processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-521-83106-2.

32. ^ Matsumae, Tatsuyoshi (2004), "A Study on the Consistency between Empirical Studies and Growth Models with Demand Satiation and Structural Change", Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review 1 (2): 197–220

33. ^ Kurose, Kazuhiro (2009), "The relation between the speed of demand saturation and the dynamism of the labour market",Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 20 (2): 151–159,doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2009.01.003

34. ^ a b McKenzie, L. W. (1953), "Specialisation and Efficiency in World Production", The Review of Economic Studies 21 (3): 165–180,JSTOR 2295770

35. ^ McKenzie, L. W. (1955), "Specialization in Production and the Production Possibility Locus", The Review of Economic Studies 23(1): 56–64, doi:10.2307/2296152, JSTOR 2296152

36. ^ Jones, R. W. (1961), "Comparative Advantage and the Theory of Tariffs: A Multi-Country, Multi- Commodity Model", The Review of Economic Studies 28 (3): 161–175, doi:10.2307/2295945,JSTOR 2295945

37. ^ Dornbusch, R.; Fischer, S.; Samuelson, P. A. (1977),"Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods" (PDF), The American Economic Review 67 (5): 823–839, JSTOR 1828066

38. ^ Matsuyama, K. (2000). "A Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods under Nonhomothetic Preferences: Demand Complementarities, Income Distribution, and North-South Trade" (PDF). Journal of Political Economy 108 (6): 1093–1120.

39. ^ Steedman, Ian (Ed) 1979 Fundamental Issues in Trade Theory, London: MacMillan and New York: St. Martin's Press.

40. ^ Steedman, Ian (1979), Trade amongst growing economies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. [page needed],ISBN 0-521-22671-6

41. ^ Chris Edwards (1985) The fragmented world: competing perspectives on trade, money, and crisis, London and New York: Methuen & Co. §3.2 The 'Sraffian' Approach to Trade Theory, pp.48–51.

42. ^ a b Shiozawa, Yoshinori (2009). "Samuelson's Implicit Criticism against Sraffa and the Sraffians and Two Other Questions"(PDF). The Kyoto Economic Review 78 (1): 19–37.

43. ^ Yeats, A., 2001, Just How Big is Global Production Sharing? in Arndt, S. and H.Kierzkowski (eds.), 2001, Fragmentation: New Production Patterns in the World Economy, (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

44. ^ Bardhan, Ashok Deo and Jaffee, Dwight (2004), "On Intra-Firm Trade and Multinationals: Foreign Outsourcing and Offshoring in Manufacturing" in Monty Graham and Robert Solow (eds.), The Role of Foreign Direct Investment and Multinational Corporations in Economic Development.

45. ^ Jones, Ronald W. 1961 Comparative Advantage and the theory of Trarrifs; A Multi-Country, Muti-commodity Model, Review of Economic Studies, 28(3): 161–175. See pp.166–8.

46. ^ Samuelson, P. A. (2001), "A Ricardo-Sraffa Paradigm Comparing Gains from Trade in Inputs and Finished Goods", Journal of Economic Literature 39 (4): 1204–1214, JSTOR 2698524

47. ^ Chipman, John S. 1965. A Survey of the Theory of International Trade: Part 1, The Classical Theory. Econometrica, 33(3): 477–519. Section 1.8

48. ^ Shiozawa, Y. (2007). "A New Construction of Ricardian Trade Theory—A Many-country, Many-commodity Case with Intermediate Goods and Choice of Production Techniques—". Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review 3 (2): 141–187. Retrieved 4 April 2011.

49. ^ Eaton, Jonathan & Kortum, Samuel, 2001. "Trade in capital goods," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1195–1235.

50. ^ Deardorff, A (2001), "Fragmentation in simple trade models", The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 12 (2): 121–137, doi:10.1016/S1062-9408(01)00043-2

51. ^ Ashok Bardhan and Dwight Jaffee 2005 "On Intra-Firm Trade and Manufacturing Outsourcing and Offshoring" (Edward Monty Graham. ed., The Role of Foreign Direct Investment and Multinational Corporations in Economic Development ; Palgrave, 2005)

52. ^ Mankiw, Gregory 2007 Ricardo vs Heckscher-Ohlin, Post of 28 April 2007 of Greg Mankiw's Blog.

53. ^ Uta Patnaik (2005) "Ricardo's Fallacy/ Mutual Benefit from Trade Based on Comparative Costs and Specialization?" Jomo K.S. (Ed.) Development Economics/ Great Economists on Development, Zed books: London and New York. Chapter 2. pp.31–41.


This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2009)

§ Case, Karl E.; Fair, Ray C. (1999), Principles of Economics (5th ed.), Prentice-Hall, ISBN 0139619054

§ Samuel Hollander (1979)). The Economics of David Ricardo. University of Toronto Press.

§ G. de Vivo (1987). "Ricardo, David," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 4, pp. 183–98

§ Samuelson, P. A. (2001). "Ricardo, David (1772–1823)," International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp. 13,330–13,334. Abstract.

External links

§ Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by David Ricardo

§ Biography, at the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

§ Biography at New School University

§ Biography at EH.Net Encyclopedia of Economic History

§ The Works of David Ricardo (McCulloch edition 1888) at the Online Library of Liberty

§ The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo (Sraffa edition) 11 vols at the Online Library of Liberty

§ Timeline of the Life of David Ricardo (1772–1823) at the Online Library of Liberty

§ On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, by David Ricardo. Complete, fully-searchable text at the Library of Economics and Liberty.

§ Ricardo on Value: the Three Chapter Ones. A presentation tracing the changes in the Principles' (University of Southampton).

Parliament of the United Kingdom

Preceded by
Richard Sharp

Member of Parliament forPortarlington

Succeeded by
James Farquahar

JEAN-BAPTISTE SAY (1767-1832):

Jean-Baptiste Say

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jean-Baptiste Say

Classical economics

Jean-Baptiste Say.


5 January 1767


15 November 1832 (aged 65)




Political economy


Say's Law

Jean-Baptiste Say (5 January 1767 – 15 November 1832) was a French economist and businessman. He had classically liberal views and argued in favor of competition, free trade, and lifting restraints on business. He is best known due to Say's Law, which is named after him and at times credited to him, but while he discussed and popularized it, he did not originate it.


J. B. Say was born in Lyon. His father, Jean-Etienne Etienne Say, was of Protestant family which had moved from Nîmes to Geneva for some time in consequence of the revocation of theEdict of Nantes. (His brother Louis Auguste (1774–1840) was also an economist). Say was intended to follow a commercial career, and was sent, with his brother Horace, to England: here he lived first in Croydon, in the house of a merchant, to whom he acted as clerk, and afterwards in London, where he was in the service of another employer. When, on the death of the latter, he returned to France, he was employed in the office of a life assurance company directed byÉtienne Clavière.

Say's first literary attempt was a pamphlet on the liberty of the press, published in 1789. He later worked under Mirabeau on the Courrier de Provence. In 1792 he took part as a volunteer in the campaign of Champagne; in 1793 he assumed, in conformity with the Revolutionary fashion, the pre-name of Atticus, and became secretary to Clavière, then finance minister.

In 1793 Say married Mlle Deloche, daughter of a former lawyer. From 1794 to 1800 Say edited a periodical entitled La Decade philosophique, litteraire, et politique, in which he expounded the doctrines of Adam Smith. He had by this time established his reputation as a publicist, and, when the consular government was established in 1799, he was selected as one of the hundred members of the tribunate, resigning the direction of the Decade.

In 1800 he published in Olbie, ou essai sur les moyens de reformer les moeurs d'une nation. In 1803 appeared Say's principal work, theTraité d'économie politique ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent et se composent les richesses. In 1804, having shown his unwillingness to sacrifice his convictions for the purpose of furthering the designs of Napoleon, he was removed from the office of tribune. He then turned to industrial pursuits, and, having made himself acquainted with the processes of the cotton manufacture, founded at Auchy, in the Pas de Calais, a spinning-mill which employed four or five hundred persons, principally women and children. He devoted his leisure to the improvement of his economic treatise, which had for some time been out of print, but which the censorship did not permit him to republish.

In 1814 he "availed himself" (to use his own words) of the sort of liberty arising from the entrance of the allied powers into France to bring out a second edition of the work, dedicated to the emperor Alexander I of Russia, who had professed himself his pupil. In the same year the French government sent him to study the economic condition of the United Kingdom. The results of his observations appeared in A tract de l'Angleterre et des Anglais.

A third edition of the Traite appeared in 1817. A chair of industrial economy was founded for him in 1819 at the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers. In 1831 he was made professor of political economy at the Collège de France. Say in 1828–1830 published his Cours complet d'economie politique pratique. In 1826, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

In his later years Say became subject to attacks of nervous apoplexy. He lost his wife in January 1830; and from that time his health constantly declined.

When the revolution of that year broke out, he was named a member of the council-general of the department of the Seine, but found it necessary to resign.

He died in Paris on 15 November 1832, and is buried in the cemetery of Invalides.

[edit]Say's Law

Further information: Say's Law

He is well known for Say's Law (or Say's Law of Markets), often summarised as

§ "Aggregate supply creates its own aggregate demand",

§ "Supply creates its own demand",

§ "Supply constitutes its own demand",

§ "If you build it, they will come",

§ "Inherent in supply is the wherewithal for its own consumption". (Direct translation from French Traité d'économie politique.)

The exact phrase "supply creates its own demand" was coined by John Maynard Keynes, who criticized it, but this characterization is disputed as a misrepresentation by some advocates of Say's law.[1] Similar sentiments, though different wordings, appear in the work of J. S. Mill (1848) and his father, James Mill (1808). The Scottish classical economist James Mill restates Say's Law in 1808, writing that "production of commodities creates, and is the one and universal cause which creates a market for the commodities produced."[2]

In Say's language, "products are paid for with products" (1803: p. 153) or "a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another" (1803: p. 178-9). Explaining his point at length, he wrote that:

It is worthwhile to remark that a product is no sooner created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest its value should diminish in his hands. Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also perishable. But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products. (J.B. Say, 1803: p.138-9)[3]

He also wrote, that it is not the abundance of money but the abundance of other products in general that facilitates sales:

Money performs but a momentary function in this double exchange; and when the transaction is finally closed, it will always be found, that one kind of commodity has been exchanged for another.[4]

Say's Law may also have been culled from Ecclesiastes 5:11 — "As goods increase, so do those who consume them. And what benefit are they to the owner except to feast his eyes on them?" (NIV) Say's Law has been considered by John Kenneth Galbraith as the most distinguished example of the stability of economic ideas, including when they are wrong.[5]


On taxes:

"To encourage whale-hunting, the English government prohibits vegetable oils which we burn in France in draught-lamps. What results from this? That one of these lamps, which costs a Frenchmen 60 francs per year, costs an Englishman 150 francs. The intention, some say, is to support the navy and to multiply the number of sailors, that each lamp nozzle costs Englishmen 90 more francs than in France. In this case, it is to multiply the number of sailors by the means of a trade that generates losses: it would be better to multiply them by a lucrative trade."

"A hard working laborer, I was told, fancied working by candlelight. He had calculated that, during his vigil, he burned a 4-penny candle, earning 8 pennies by his work. A tax on tallows and another on the manufacture of the candles increased by 5 pennies the cost of his luminary, which became thus more expensive than the value of the product that it could shed light upon. From then on, as soon as night fell, the workman remained idle; he lost the 4 pennies which his work could obtain him, and without the tax service perceiving anything out of this production. Such a loss must be multiplied by the number of the workmen in a city and by the number of the days of the year."

On property rights:

"There is no security of property, where a despotic authority can possess itself of the property of the subject against his consent. Neither is there such security, where the consent is merely nominal and delusive."

"The property a man has in his own industry, is violated, whenever he is forbidden the free exercise of his faculties or talents, except insomuch as they would interfere with the rights of third parties."

-Jean-Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy, 1803


§ Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). "Say, Jean Baptiste". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

1. ^ (Clower 2004, p. 92)

2. ^ James Mill, Commerce Defended (1808), Chapter VI: Consumption, p. 81

3. ^ Information on Jean-Baptiste Say

4. ^ Jean Baptiste Say: A treatise on political economy; or the production distribution and consumption of wealth. Translated from the fourth edition of the French. Batoche Books Kitchener 2001, page 57

5. ^ Galbraith, John Kenneth (1975), Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, ISBN 0395198437.

[edit]Further reading

§ Hollander, Samuel (2005), Jean-Baptiste Say and the Classical Canon in Economics: the British Connection in French Classicism, London and New York: Routledge, ISBN 041532338X.

§ Sowell, Thomas (1973), Say's Law: An Historical Analysis, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691041660.

§ Whatmore, Richard (2001), Republicanism and the French Revolution: An Intellectual History of Jean-Baptiste Say's Political Economy, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199241155.

[edit]External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Jean-Baptiste Say

§ Say's Law and Economic Growth

§ Bio at the Library of Economics and Liberty

§ Nature of Things, by Jean-Baptiste Say. In Lalor's Cyclopedia at the Library of Economics and Liberty.

§ Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Insights article (Volume 11, Number 1)

§ A Treatise on Political Economy, by Jean-Baptiste Say at McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought

§ Letters to Malthus on Several Subjects of Political Economy (1821) at McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Portrait by Gustave Courbet, 1865

Full name

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon


15 January 1809


19 January 1865 (aged 56)


19th-century philosophy


Western Philosophy


Socialism, anarchism, mutualism

Main interests

Liberty, property, authority,poverty, social justice,Egalitarianism

Notable ideas

Property is theft, Anarchy is order, economic federation, anarchist gradualism.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (French pronunciation: [pjɛʁ ʒɔzɛf pʁudɔ̃]; 15 January 1809 – 19 January 1865) was a French politician, mutualist philosopher and socialist. He was a member of theFrench Parliament, and he was the first person to call himself an "anarchist". He is considered among the most influential theorists and organisers of anarchism. After the events of 1848 he began to call himself a federalist.[1]

Proudhon, who was born in Besançon, was a printer who taught himself Latin in order to better print books in the language. His best-known assertion is that Property is Theft!, contained in his first major work, What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government(Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement), published in 1840. The book's publication attracted the attention of the French authorities. It also attracted the scrutiny of Karl Marx, who started a correspondence with its author. The two influenced each other: they met in Paris while Marx was exiled there. Their friendship finally ended when Marx responded to Proudhon's The System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Povertywith the provocatively titled The Poverty of Philosophy. The dispute became one of the sources of the split between the anarchist and Marxist wings of the International Working Men's Association. Some, such as Edmund Wilson, have contended that Marx's attack on Proudhon had its origin in the latter's defense of Karl Grün, whom Marx bitterly disliked but who had been preparing translations of Proudhon's work.

Proudhon favored workers' associations or co-operatives, as well as individual worker/peasantpossession, over private ownership or the nationalization of land and workplaces. He considered that social revolution could be achieved in a peaceful manner. In The Confessions of a Revolutionary Proudhon asserted that, Anarchy is Order Without Power, the phrase which much later inspired, in the view of some, the anarchist circled-A symbol, today "one of the most common graffiti on the urban landscape." [2] He unsuccessfully tried to create a national bank, to be funded by what became an abortive attempt at an income tax on capitalists andstockholders. Similar in some respects to a credit union, it would have given interest-freeloans.[3]


[edit]Early years

Proudhon was born in Besançon, France; his father was a brewer's cooper. As a boy, he herded cows and followed other similar, simple pursuits. But he was not entirely self-educated; at age 16, he entered his town's college, though his family was so poor that he could not buy the necessary books. He had to borrow them from his fellow students in order to copy the lessons. At age 19, he became a working compositor; later he rose to be a corrector for the press, proofreading ecclesiasticalworks, and thereby acquiring a very competent knowledge of theology. In this way also he came to learn Hebrew, and to compare it with Greek, Latin and French; and it was the first proof of his intellectual audacity that on the strength of this he wrote an Essai de grammaire génerale. In 1838, he obtained the pension Suard, a bursaryof 1500 francs a year for three years, for the encouragement of young men of promise, which was in the gift of the Academy of Besançon.

[edit]Interest in politics

In 1830, he wrote a treatise L'Utilité de la célébration du dimanche, which contained the seeds of his revolutionary ideas. About this time he went to Paris, France where he lived a poor, ascetic and studious life, but became acquainted with the socialist ideas which were then fomenting in the capital. In 1840 he published his first work Qu'est-ce que la propriété (or "What Is Property"). His famous answer to this question, "La propriété, c'est le vol" ("property is theft"), naturally did not please the Academy of Besançon, and there was some talk of withdrawing his pension; but he held it for the regular period.

His third memoir on property was a letter to the Fourierist, M. Considérant; he was tried for it at Besançon but was acquitted. In 1846, he published the Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère (or "The System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty"). For some time, Proudhon ran a small printing establishment at Besançon, but without success; afterwards he became connected as a kind of manager with a commercial firm in Lyon, France. In 1847, he left this job and finally settled in Paris, where he was now becoming celebrated as a leader of innovation. In this year he also became a Freemason[4]

[edit]Revolution of 1848

Proudhon was surprised by the Revolutions of 1848 in France. He participated in the February uprising and the composition of what he termed "the first republican proclamation" of the new republic. But he had misgivings about the new provisional government, headed byDupont de l'Eure (1767–1855), who, since the French Revolution in 1789, had been a longstanding politician, although often in the opposition. Beside Dupont de l'Eure, the provisional government was dominated by liberals such as Lamartine (Foreign Affairs), Ledru-Rollin (Interior),Crémieux (Justice), Burdeau (War), etc., because it was pursuing political reform at the expense of the socio-economic reform, which Proudhon considered basic. As during the 1830 July Revolution, the Republican-Socialist Party had set up a counter-government in the Hotel de Ville, including Louis Blanc, Armand Marrast, Ferdinand Flocon, and workman Albert.

Proudhon published his own perspective for reform which was completed in 1849, Solution du problème social ("Solution of the Social Problem"), in which he laid out a program of mutual financial cooperation among workers. He believed this would transfer control of economic relations from capitalists and financiers to workers. The central part of his plan was the establishment of a bank to provide credit at a very low rate of interest and the issuing exchange notes that would circulate instead of money based on gold.

During the Second French Republic (1848–1852), Proudhon had his biggest public effect through journalism. He got involved with four newspapers: Le Représentant du Peuple (February 1848 – August 1848); Le Peuple (September 1848 – June 1849); La Voix du Peuple(September 1849 – May 1850); Le Peuple de 1850 (June 1850 – October 1850). His polemical writing style, combined with his perception of himself as a political outsider, produced a cynical, combative journalism that appealed to many French workers but alienated others. He repeatedly criticised the government's policies and promoted reformation of credit and exchange. He tried to establish a popular bank (Banque du peuple) early in 1849, but despite over 13,000 people signing up (mostly workers), receipts were limited falling short of 18,000FF and the whole enterprise was essentially stillborn.

Proudhon ran for the constituent assembly in April 1848, but was not elected, although his name appeared on the ballots in Paris, Lyon, Besançon, and Lille, France. He was successful, in the complementary elections of June 4, and served as a deputy during the debates over the National Workshops, created by the February 25, 1848, decree passed by Republican Louis Blanc. The workshops were to give work to the unemployed. Proudhon was never enthusiastic about such workshops, perceiving them to be essentially charitable institutions that did not resolve the problems of the economic system. He was against their elimination unless an alternative could be found for the workers who relied on the workshops for subsistence.

In 1848 the closing of the National Workshops provoked the June Days Uprising and the violence shocked Proudhon. Visiting the barricades personally, he later reflected that his presence at the Bastille at this time was "one of the most honorable acts of my life". But in general during the tumultuous events of 1848, Proudhon opposed insurrection by preaching peaceful conciliation, a stance that was in accord with his lifelong stance against violence. He disapproved of the revolts and demonstrations of February, May, and June 1848, though sympathetic to the social and psychological injustices that the insurrectionists had been forced to endure.

Proudhon died in Passy, and is buried in Paris, at the cemetery of Montparnasse (2nd division, near the Lenoir alley, in the tomb of the Proudhon family).

[edit]Political philosophy

Proudhon declared in 1849:

Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy.

He was the first person to refer to himself as an anarchist.[citation needed] In What is Property, published in 1840, he defined anarchy as "the absence of a master, of a sovereign", and in The General idea of the Revolution (1851) he urged a "society without authority." He extended this analysis beyond political institutions, arguing in What is Property? that "proprietor" was "synonymous" with "sovereign". For Proudhon:

"Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.[5]

Proudhon in his earliest works analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to those contemporary socialists who advocated centralised, hierarchical forms of association or state control of the economy. In a sequence of commentaries, from What is Property? (1840) through the posthumously published Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1863–64), he declared in turn that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". When he said "property is theft", he was referring to the landowner or capitalist who he believed "stole" the profits from laborers. For Proudhon, the capitalist's employee was "subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience".[6]

In asserting that property is freedom, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisan's home and tools of his trade and the income he received by selling his goods. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is one's property and anything beyond that is not. He advocated worker self-management and was opposed to the private ownership of the means of production. As he put it in 1848:

"Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality... We are socialists... under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership... We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations... We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic."[7]

Proudhon called himself a socialist, but he opposed state ownership of capital goods in favour of ownership by workers themselves in associations. This makes him one of the first theorists of libertarian socialism. Proudhon was one of the main influences on the theory ofworkers' self-management (autogestion), in the late 19th and 20th century.

Proudhon strenuously rejected the ownership of the products of labor by society or the state, arguing in What is Property? that while "property in product [...] does not carry with it property in the means of production"[8] [...] The right to product is exclusive [...] the right to means is common" and applied this to the land ("the land is [...] a common thing"[9]) and workplaces ("all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor".[10]) He argued that while society owned the means of production or land, users would control and run them (under supervision from society), with the "organising of regulating societies" in order to "regulate the market".[11]

This use-ownership he called "possession", and this economic system mutualism. Proudhon had many arguments against entitlement to land and capital, including reasons based on morality, economics, politics, and individual liberty. One such argument was that it enabled profit, which in turn led to social instability and war by creating cycles of debt that eventually overcame the capacity of labor to pay them off. Another was that it produced "despotism" and turned workers into wage workers subject to the authority of a boss.

In What Is Property? Proudhon wrote:

Property, acting by exclusion and encroachment, while population was increasing, has been the life-principle and definitive cause of all revolutions. Religious wars, and wars of conquest, when they have stopped short of the extermination of races, have been only accidental disturbances, soon repaired by the mathematical progression of the life of nations. The downfall and death of societies are due to the power of accumulation possessed by property.

Joseph Déjacque attacked Proudhon's support for notions of patriarchy, what late 20th century anarchists would term sexism, as quite at odds with anarchist principles.

Towards the end of his life, Proudhon modified some of his earlier views. In The Principle of Federation(1863) he modified his earlier anti-state position, arguing for "the balancing of authority by liberty" and put forward a decentralised "theory of federal government". He also defined anarchy differently as "the government of each by himself", which meant "that political functions have been reduced to industrial functions, and that social order arises from nothing but transactions and exchanges." This work also saw him call his economic system an "agro-industrial federation", arguing that it would provide "specific federal arrangements is to protect the citizens of the federated states from capitalist and financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside" and so stop the re-introduction of "wage labour." This was because "political right requires to be buttressed by economic right."

In the posthumously published Theory of Property, he argued that "property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State." Hence, "Proudhon could retain the idea of property as theft, and at the same time offer a new definition of it as liberty. There is the constant possibility of abuse, exploitation, which spells theft. At the same time property is a spontaneous creation of society and a bulwark against the ever-encroaching power of the State."[12]

He continued to oppose both capitalist and state property. In Theory of Property he maintains: "Now in 1840, I categorically rejected the notion of property...for both the group and the individual", but then states his new theory of property: "property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists, with an unequaled capacity for setting itself against authority..." and the "principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual." However, he continued to oppose concentrations of wealth and property, arguing for small-scale property ownership associated with peasants and artisans. He still opposed private property in land: "What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on." In addition, he still believed that that "property" should be more equally distributed and limited in size to that actually used by individuals, families and workers associations.[13] He supported the right of inheritance, and defended "as one of the foundations of the family and society."[14] However, he refused to extend this beyond personal possessions arguing that "[u]nder the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour."[15]

"Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican."
"A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs – no matter under what form of government – may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans."
"Well! You are a democrat?"
"What! "you would have a monarchy?"
" A Constitutionalist?"
"God forbid."
"Then you are an aristocrat?"
"Not at all!"
"You want a mixed form of government?"
"Even less."
"Then what are you?"
"I am an anarchist."
"Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government."
"By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me."

"Dialogue with a Philistine" from What is Property?

As a consequence of his opposition to profit, wage labour, worker exploitation, ownership of land and capital, as well as to state property, Proudhon rejected both capitalism and communism. He adopted the termmutualism for his brand of anarchism, which involved control of the means of production by the workers. In his vision, self-employed artisans, peasants, and cooperatives would trade their products on the market. For Proudhon, factories and other large workplaces would be run by "labor associations" operating on directly democratic principles. The state would be abolished; instead, society would be organized by a federation of "free communes" (acommune is a local municipality in French). In 1863 Proudhon said: "All my economic ideas as developed over twenty-five years can be summed up in the words: agricultural-industrial federation. All my political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political federation or decentralization."

Proudhon opposed the charging of interest and rent, but did not seek to abolish them by law: "I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."[16]

Proudhon was a revolutionary, but his revolution did not mean violent upheaval or civil war, but rather the transformation of society. This transformation was essentially moral in nature and demanded the highest ethics from those who sought change. It was monetary reform, combined with organising a credit bank and workers associations, that Proudhon proposed to use as a lever to bring about the organization of society along new lines. He did not suggest how the monetary institutions would cope with the problem of inflation and with the need for the efficient allocation of scarce resources.

He made few public criticisms of Marx or Marxism, because in his lifetime Marx was a relatively minor thinker; it was only after Proudhon's death that Marxism became a large movement. He did, however, criticize authoritarian socialists of his period. This included the state socialist Louis Blanc, of whom Proudhon said, "Let me say to M. Blanc: you desire neither Catholicism nor monarchy nor nobility, but you must have a God, a religion, a dictatorship, a censorship, a hierarchy, distinctions, and ranks. For my part, I deny your God, your authority, your sovereignty, your judicial State, and all your representative mystifications." It was Proudhon's book What is Property? that convinced the young Karl Marx that private property should be abolished.

In one of his first works, The Holy Family, Marx said, "Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians, he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat." Marx, however, disagreed with Proudhon's anarchism and later published vicious criticisms of Proudhon. Marx wrote The Poverty of Philosophy as a refutation of Proudhon's The Philosophy of Poverty.


Although ultimately overshadowed by Karl Marx, who dismissed him as a bourgeois socialist for his pro-market views,[17] Proudhon had an immediate and lasting influence on the anarchist movement, and, more recently, in the aftermaths of May 1968 and after the end of the Cold War. His essay on What Is Government? is quite well known:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

—P.-J. Proudhon, "What Is Government?", General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.

In addition to being considered a founding father of anarchism, he has also been considered by some to be a forerunner of fascism.[18] He was first used as a reference, surprisingly, in the Cercle Proudhon, a right-wing association formed in 1911 by George Valois and Edouard Berth. Both had been brought together by the syndicalist Georges Sorel. But they would tend toward a synthesis of socialism andnationalism, mixing Proudhon's mutualism with Charles Maurras' integralist nationalism. In 1925, George Valois founded the Faisceau, the first fascist league which took its name from Mussolini's fasci. Historian of fascism, in particular of French fascists, Zeev Sternhell, has noted this use of Proudhon by the far-right. In The Birth Of Fascist Ideology, he states that:

"the Action Française...from its inception regarded the author of La philosophie de la misère as one of its masters.[19] He was given a place of honour in the weekly section of the journal of the movement entitled, precisely, 'Our Masters.' Proudhon owed this place in L'Action française to what the Maurrassians saw as his antirepublicanism, his anti-Semitism, his loathing ofRousseau, his disdain for the French Revolution, democracy, and parliamentarianism: and his championship of the nation, the family, tradition, and the monarchy."

K. Steven Vincent, however, states that “to argue that Proudhon was a proto-fascist suggests that one has never looked seriously at Proudhon’s writings.” [20]

Proudhon influenced the non-conformists of the 1930s,[21] as well as anarchism. In the 1960s, he became the main influence of autogestion(workers' self-management) in France, inspiring the CFDT trade-union, created in 1964, and the Unified Socialist Party (PSU), founded in 1960 and led until 1967 by Édouard Depreux. In particular, autogestion influenced the LIP self-management experience in Besançon.

Proudhon's thought has seen some revival since the end of the Cold War and the fall of "real socialism" in the Eastern Bloc. It can be loosely related to modern attempts at direct democracy. The Groupe Proudhon, related to the Fédération Anarchiste (Anarchist Federation), published a review from 1981 to 1983 and again since 1994. (The first period corresponds with the 1981 election of Socialist candidateFrançois Mitterrand and the economic liberal turn of 1983 taken by the Socialist government.) It is staunchly anti-fascist and related to theSection Carrément Anti Le Pen which opposes Jean-Marie Le Pen).[22] English-speaking anarchists have also attempted to keep the Proudhonian tradition alive and to engage in dialogue with Proudhon's ideas: Kevin Carson's mutualism is self-consciously Proudhonian, andShawn P. Wilbur has continued both to facilitate the translation into English of Proudhon's texts and to reflect on their significance for the contemporary anarchist project.

[edit]Criticisms, alleged antisemitism

Stewart Edwards, the editor of the Selected Writings Of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, remarks: "Proudhon's diaries (Carnets, ed. P. Haubtmann, Marcel Rivière, Paris 1960 to date) reveal that he had almost paranoid feelings of hatred against the Jews, common in Europe at the time. In 1847 he considered publishing an article against the Jewish race, which he said he "hated". The proposed article would have "called for the expulsion of the Jews from France... The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us." (Carnets, vol. 2, p. 337: No VI, 178)

J. Salwyn Schapiro argued in 1945 that Proudhon was a racist, “a glorifier of war for its own sake” and his “advocacy of personal dictatorship and his laudation of militarism can hardly be equalled in the reactionary writings of his or of our day.” [23]

Other scholars have rejected Schapiro's claims. Graham Purchase states that while Proudhon was personally racist, “anti-semitism formed no part of Proudhon’s revolutionary programme.”[24] Proudhon himself argued that under mutualism “[t]here will no longer be nationality, no longer fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they will mean only places of birth. Man, of whatever race or colour he may be, is an inhabitant of the universe; citizenship is everywhere an acquired right.”[25]

Proudhon also opposed militarism and war, arguing that the “end of militarism is the mission of the nineteenth century, under pain of indefinite decadence”[26] and that the “workers alone are capable of putting an end to war by creating economic equilibrium. This presupposes a radical revolution in ideas and morals.”[27] As Robert L. Hoffman notes that War and Peace “ends by condemning war without reservation” and its “conclusion [is] that war is obsolete.” He argues that it “difficult to see how his purpose and overall conception could have been mistaken by any who read the whole book with care.”[28] Marxist John Ehrenberg summarised Proudhon's position:

“If injustice was the cause of war, it followed that conflict could not be eliminated until society was reorganised along egalitarian lines. Proudhon had wanted to prove that the reign of political economy would be the reign of peace, finding it difficult to believe that people really thought he was defending militarism.”[29]

Proudhon also rejected dictatorship, stating in the 1860s that “what I will always be . . . a republican, a democrat even, and a socialist into the bargain.”[30] Henri de Lubac argued that, in terms of Proudhon’s critique of democracy, “we must not allow all this to hoodwink us. His invectives against democracy were not those of a counter-revolutionary. They were aimed at what he himself called ‘the false democracy’ . . . The attacked an apparently liberal ‘pseudo-democracy’ which ‘was not economic and social’ . . . ‘a Jacobinical democracy’” Proudhon “did not want to destroy, but complete, the work of 1789” and while “he had a grudge against the ‘old democracy’, the democracy of Robespierre and Marat” he repeatedly contrasted it “with a ‘young democracy’, which was a ‘social democracy.’”[31]

According to historian of anarchism George Woodcock, some positions Proudhon took "sorted oddly with his avowed anarchism". Woodcock cited for example Proudhon's proposition that each citizen perform one or two years militia service.[32] The proposal appeared in theProgramme Revolutionaire, an electoral manifesto issued by Proudhon after he was asked to run for a position in the provisional government. The text reads: "7° 'L'armée. – Abolition immédiate de la conscription et des remplacements; obligation pour tout citoyen de faire, pendant un ou deux ans, le service militaire ; application de l'armée aux services administratifs et travaux d'utilité publique." ("Military service by allcitizens is proposed as an alternative to conscription and the practice of "replacement", by which those who could avoided such service.") However, in the same document, Proudhon described the "form of government" he was proposing as "a centralization analogous with that of the State, but in which no one obeys, no one is dependent, and everyone is free and sovereign."[33]

Albert Meltzer has said that that though Proudhon used the term "anarchist", he was not one, and that he never engaged in "anarchist activity or struggle" but rather in "parliamentary activity".[34]


§ Qu'est ce que la propriété? (What is Property?, 1840)

§ Warning to Proprietors (1842)

§ Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère (The System of Economic Contradictions or the Philosophy of Misery, 1846)

§ Solution of the Social Problem, (1849)

§ Idée générale de la révolution au XIXe siècle (General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, 1851)

§ Le manuel du spéculateur à la bourse (The Manual of the Stock Exchange Speculator, 1853)

§ De la justice dans la révolution et dans l'Eglise (Of Justice in the Revolution and the Church, 1858)

§ La Guerre et la Paix (War and Peace, 1861)

§ Du principe Fédératif (Principle of Federation, 1863)

§ De la capacité politique des classes ouvrières (Of the Political Capacity of the Working Class, 1865)

§ Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1866)

§ Théorie du mouvement constitutionnel (Theory of the Constitutionalist Movement, 1870)

§ Du principe de l'art (The Principle of Art, 1875)

§ Correspondences (Correspondences, 1875)

[edit]Works online

§ at the Fair Use Repository:

§ General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851)

§ at invisible molotov:

§ The Philosophy of ProgressPDF (1.56 MB)

§ at the Mondo Politico on-line Library:

§ What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government

§ at the Electronic Text Center at the University of Virginia Library:

§ What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government

§ System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery

§ Works by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon at Project Gutenberg

§ What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government

§ System of Economical Contradictions: or, the Philosophy of Misery

§ Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology, Iain McKay (editor), AK Press, 2011

§ (French) at the bibliothèque numérique Les Classiques des sciences sociales, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi

§ Les Malthusiens (1848)

§ from Textes choisis

§ "Proudhon peint par lui-même"

§ "La science économique"

§ "La propriété"

§ "La liberté"

§ "Mutuellisme et fédéralisme"

§ from Justice et liberté

§ "Les causes de l’oppression"

§ "La liberté"

§ "Le travail"

§ "La justice"

§ Qu'est-ce que la propriété ? Ou recherches sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement (1840)

§ Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère (1846)

§ Théorie de la propriété (1862)

[edit]See also

§ Social anarchism

§ Individualist anarchism

§ Self management

§ Socialist economics

§ Individualist anarchism in Europe

§ Cost the limit of price


1. ^ Binkley, Robert C. Realism and Nationalism 1852-1871. Read Books. p. 118

2. ^ Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible. Fontana, London. 1993. p. 558

3. ^ Martin, Henri, & Alger, Abby Langdon. A Popular History of France from the First Revolution to the Present Time. D. Estes and C.E. Lauria. p. 189

4. ^ Henri du Bac. The Un-Marxian Socialist: A Study of Proudhon . New York: Sheed and Ward, 1848. p. 9.

5. ^ P.-J. Proudhon, Les confessions d'un révolutionnaire, (Paris: Garnier, 1851), p. 271., quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 43-44.

6. ^ General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851), Sixth Study, § 3 ¶ 5.

7. ^ Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. 'Oeuvres Complètes' (Lacroix edition), volume 17, pages 188-9

8. ^ P.-J Proudhon, What Is Property? (Dover, 1970), p. 109.

9. ^ P.-J Proudhon, What Is Property? (Dover, 1970), p. 92.

10. ^ P.-J Proudhon, What Is Property? (Dover, 1970), p. 120.

11. ^ Proudhon, Selected Writings, p. 70.

12. ^ Copleston, Frederick. Social Philosophy in France, A History of Philosophy, Volume IX, Image/Doubleday, 1994, p. 67

13. ^ Proudhon, Theory of Property in Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon p. 136, p. 129, p. 133, p. 135, p. 129.

14. ^ Steward Edwards, Introduction to Selected Writings of P.J. Proudhon.

15. ^ In Daniel Guérin (ed.), No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62.

16. ^ Proudhon's Solution of the Social Problem, Edited by Henry Cohen. Vanguard Press, 1927.

17. ^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, part 3, section 2.

18. ^ Roche, George Charles. 1977. Frederic Bastiat; a Man Alone. Hillsdale College Press. p. 152

19. ^ Griffiths, Richard. 2005. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 23-24

20. ^ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 234

21. ^ Jean-Louis Loubet del Bayle, A 2001 Interview (p.3) in the Revue Jibrile (French)

22. ^ Drapeau Noir (Black Flag), review of the Groupe Proudhon (French)

23. ^ Schapiro, J. Salwyn (1945). "Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of Fascism". American Historical Review (American Historical Association)50 (4): 714–737. doi:10.2307/1842699. JSTOR 1842699.

24. ^ “Introduction”, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, p. xxxvi

25. ^ General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, p. 283

26. ^ quoted by George Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 233

27. ^ Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 214

28. ^ Revolutionary Justice, pp. 210-1

29. ^ Proudhon and His Age, p. 145

30. ^ Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 201

31. ^ The Un-Marxian Socialist: A Study of Proudhon, p. 28, p. 29

32. ^ George Woodcock Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography, Black Rose Books, 1987, p. 128.

33. ^ "Programme révolutionnaire." Mélanges. Tome I. Paris: Lacroix, 1868. 72, 70.

34. ^ Albert Meltzer. Anarchism: Arguments for and Against, AK Press, 2000, p. 12

§ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon entry at the Anarchy Archives

§ The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution by Robert Graham

§ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon entry at the Daily Bleed's Anarchist Encyclopedia (includes short timeline)

§ People: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

§ Proudhon and Anarchism by Larry Gambone

§ Proudhon by K. Steven Vincent

§ Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology

§ "Où est passé Proudhon ?" a film by Anne Argouse and Hugues Peyret,

No comments: