Discussions About Property Between Marx and Proudhon

One noteworthy aspect of the theoretical debates between Proudhon and Marx, which is of historical significance in terms of highlighting the relationship between anarchism and Marxism, is their differing views on property. In the discussion of the origin and development of property, Proudhon characterizes property as theft, while Marx argues that property can only be evaluated within the framework of the social production relations of the relevant period. Proudhon’s aim is to analyze the forms of usurpation by revealing the impossibility of property. In Proudhon, who deals with this through the right to abuse, property is conceived as a legal concept and approaches that construct property as a "natural right" are criticized. Pointing out that Proudhon perceives property as a legal will, Marx emphasizes that he reduces all economic relations to property as a general concept of law, and he thinks that Proudhon’s critique of property does not go beyond Brissot’s motto “property is theft†used much earlier. The basis that Marx provides for this idea is that Proudhon’s economic-political critique was also based on the assumptions of the precursors of economic-political. In this study, the property-centered divergence between Proudhon and Marx is revealed through how the assumptions of a real critique of political economy are positioned in the critique of Proudhon.