What does Proudhon mean by ‘mutualism’ and how does it relate to his ideas about government?

The idea of mutualism as expressed in the numerous writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon represents his economic vision of society. Not only does he envisage the concept of mutualism as the economic base of future society, but also as an effective method of realising it. It thus becomes both the transient and the achievement; the means and the ends. Proudhon’s ends were clearly announced with the provocative statement "I am an anarchist!" (1). Although this pronouncement gave him a certain notoriety, as the first self-proclaimed anarchist, it did not immediately clarify his objectives. Previously, the term ‘anarchist’ was derogatory, used to undermine a political opponent. Proudhon turned anarchy into an ideology (2). In order to understand mutualism, an understanding of what Proudhon saw as anarchism would be a desirable prerequisite.

As the above passage shows, Proudhon’s criticism of government was less directed towards the form, than to the nature of rule. Liberty was fundamental to Proudhon and the nature of rule would always infringe upon individual liberty, no matter what form it took. Only autonomous self-rule could be justified; "My conscience is mine, my justice is mine, and my freedom is a sovereign freedom."(4) As politics necessarily involves institutional authority, Proudhon initially avoided political reform in his construction of anarchism, turning his attention towards the economic sphere of society.

Proudhon considered the concept of private property to be the primary cause of immorality within the economic order. His views were outlined in What Is Property? (1840) where he answered his own question with typical bravado and with what "was to become one of the great phrases of the nineteenth century,"(5) "Property Is Theft!"(6) This statement, however, also obscures the true relevance of the argument. On closer inspection, it would appear that Proudhon was not against all forms of property. His main complaint was towards property that increased the wealth of the proprietor without any effort on his part. Proudhon had a strong work ethic underlying his theory and so his attack on property was predominantly upon unearned income from such things as rent or interest from loans. He considered legitimate property, or ‘possession’, as that produced through the owner’s labour or that needed for his work. A worker’s tools, land and home were considered to be his possessions and therefore legitimate. Indeed, in his later writings, Proudhon considered these possessions to be a necessity in protecting the individual’s liberty from interference and attack from the state. What Is Property? gained Proudhon the respect of the radical left, including the praise of Karl Marx; "Proudhon submits the basis of political economy, property, to a critical examination, and it is truly the first decisive, vigorous and scientific examination that has been made of it."(7)

Proudhon sought a solution to the perpetual inequality that he believed had formed through the relationship between property and labour. The economic system certainly needed reform, though he rejected communism as a possible solution. Communism, or state socialism, as expressed in the works of Owen, Cabet, Leroux and Blanc, was gaining support throughout the nineteenth century. Proudhon was aware of their arguments but clearly worried about the adverse effects that such a system could, and in his opinion would, produce. Economic equality may well have been achieved by their proposed systems, but at the cost of liberty, making them for Proudhon, simply unacceptable. Under communism, a large centralised authority is needed for "the radical, generally egalitarian restructuring of society."(8) This need, or "government idea,"(9) puts the communities needs above the individuals. The individual cannot feel free to act however he wishes and is unable to follow his own self-direction. His main activity, his employment, is regulated by the state under the pretext of acting in the interests of the community. "Men cease to be treated as thinking, willing agents and become objects or instruments of the community, liable to be used or abused as it thinks."(10)

Proudhon believed that the property, by nature, encouraged the work-ethic and promoted individual self-direction. Unfortunately it also acted immorally, producing divisions within society that lay festering, thus creating envy, greed and destructive inequalities. Communism, in contrast, would restore morality through the imposition of egalitarian measures throughout society. However, this very imposition would destroy the freedom and self-direction essential for retaining individual humanity. Proudhon attempted to forge a balance, in which the different forms of positive morality inherent in each system were preserved, whilst their negative characteristics were simultaneously discarded. Quite surprisingly, he used the terminology of the Hegelian dialectic, claiming the solution to be the synthesis of communism and property.(11)

Mutualism was Proudhon’s solution or synthesis. Gradually built up through a selection of his works, it was composed of a number of different elements, united through the aim of individual moral liberty. Although Proudhon insisted that the worker should maintain his own independence, he did not support the form of extreme individualism advocated by Stirner. A society made up of isolated individuals was "like a piece of matter whose molecules had lost their coherence, it would crumble into dust at the slightest shock."(12) Man was a distinct individual who did not stand alone, but out of necessity formed relationships within the community. Under mutualism, these relationships would be equal, with each transaction being mutually beneficial to all those involved. In a transaction involving two people, it is quite easy to see how a business relationship could be beneficial. Each one exchanging a product of their labour for a product of the same value without any need for outside interference. The exchange is based on trust, in that each party would consider the two products of equal value. Indeed, if one party disagreed with the value placed upon a product, in effect, distrusting the others valuation, he could simply terminate the exchange. The mutuality of trust, or in Proudhon’s terminology, reciprocy of respect, was essential, but naturally achievable. However, although this was the basic idea behind mutualism, Proudhon understood that this simplistic relationship was an exception in economic relations.

The rise of capitalism, with its technological advances, had radically changed the economic landscape. The past serf and feudal relationship had either altered, or was in the process of being altered, with the rise of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the proletariat as the main labouring class. Economic relations and the methods of production were now far more complex than had ever been previously. Yet despite, indeed because of, these added complications, Proudhon felt that incorporating the principles of mutualism would be ultimately beneficial. In production that could be achieved through independent labour, such as small-scale agricultural labour, exchange would follow the basic mutualist principles outlined above. Even slightly larger forms of production that required small groups of workers could follow these basic principles by sharing both the labour and the benefits of their work. However, the growth of technology had also created large-scale methods of production that needed great numbers of workers in order to improve efficiency. Proudhon preferred small-scale methods of production, in which the adaptation of mutualism was easier to achieve and where the worker could clearly see the product of his labour. However, he was fully aware of the necessity of technology and its need for large-scale production, or collective force.(13) He maintained that mutualism, with some adjustment, would still prove beneficial in this larger arena.

Proudhon only began adjusting his ideas to large-scale methods of production after, what was to prove an inspirational, meeting with the workers of Lyons. He was particularly impressed by the group known as the ‘mutualists’ to whom he owed the name of his theory. The mutualists were an association of workers, specifically manual workers, whose leading members had taken part in the French risings of 1831 and 1834. They were equally attracted to Proudhon sharing his ideas on the importance of economic, rather than political, change. They later became an important element within the International, promoting Proudhonian theory, much to the frustration of Marx. Proudhon recognised in the mutualists the difference between "an association for its own sake"(14) and the working association. In the former, its members had a binding relationship built upon a shared interest. However, this form of union carries obligations and demands that infringed upon each member’s individual liberty without purpose. In contrast, the members of working associations "seeking, by the union of their labour and capital, certain advantages which they could not obtain otherwise, arrange to have as little obligation and as much independence as possible."(15) An association is not necessary for Proudhon, unless forced through economic considerations, and by economic he means labour. Any other interest can just as effectively be shared without the need of an opposing association.

An aid to the emergence of mutualism, which Proudhon struggled vainly to achieve, was the establishment of a Peoples Bank. He presumed it would compete successfully with ordinary banking establishments by providing large amounts of capital cheaply to "any responsible character who desired it".(16) Its aim was again to take the initiative away from the capitalist elements already operating in society by re-establishing them within a mutualist framework. The bank would act as a means of contact between borrowers and lenders, and by restricting rates of interest to a bare minimum, would potentially provide a financial equality. Minimum interest rates would act morally by eradicating usurpation. His attempts and full intentions have been well documented by Woodcock(17), and the saga of the Peoples Bank, though controversial and of interest, is not strictly relevant here.

The overall ambition of Proudhon was revolution, although not of the type one would initially expect, nor the type urged by many of his revolutionary peers and contemporaries. Having participated in the French revolution of 1848, he had no desire for repeating violent insurrection. His method was to be a slow, gradual revolution based fundamentally upon mutualism, which was, in turn, based upon the morality of labour. Despite Proudhon’s countless contradictions and change of mind that make it difficult to summarise his theory(18), those themes that are consistent are generally the most informative. The morality of labour is one such theme.

Proudhon’s insistence upon the morality of labour was disturbingly puritanical. Labour was always seen as a good in whatever circumstance. Even under the harshest tyrannical authority it would be of moral significance. Society would therefore not be organised around politics, as it is at present, but purely around work; in which mutualism would become the sole method of organisation. Disheartened by the outcome of the French revolution, in which he felt the efforts of radical reform had been wasted upon the political sphere, by reorganising the form and not the method of government. He warned revolutionaries of the dangers of political action or contact with the government. To fight government in the realm of politics, was fighting the enemy on its own terms and thus placed the revolutionary at a disadvantage. By organising the economic sphere along the ideas of mutualism, outlined above, creating an alternative order, the reliance and need for government would, he believed, simply dissolve. "It is industrial organisation that we will put in place of government"(19).

The idea of revolution without the use of violence is an attractive proposition. However, even if wide-scale mutualism was to prove successful in practice, it does not necessarily follow that government would automatically dissolve. Governments have ways and means of clinging to power, as Proudhon was all too aware. Even so Proudhon presented a powerful argument. His critique of government has yet to be bettered by any other anarchist, libertarian or anti-authoritarian, and his view of the dangerous inadequacies inherent within state socialism have proved frightenly accurate. Whilst his ideas of mutualism have never achieved the revolution and resulting anarchist order he desired, the basic precepts have proved highly influential emerging again and again in different forms.(20) They were clearly apparent in the thought of Kropotkin and in the practise of Guild Socialists. Even today, watered-down forms of mutualism can be seen operating within modern economic institutions. This is a remarkable achievement for a man who once proudly claimed to "belong to no party and reject all schools, and therefore have no following to which I could give instructions and orders of the day."(21)