On ne retrouve nulle part dans l’œuvre de Proudhon la notion d’intérêt général, ni en termes positifs ni en termes négatifs. Ce n’est pas, je pense, que Proudhon refusait le terme en tant que tel, mais il prêtait à mon avis trop à confusion avec la notion de volonté générale de Rousseau, envers qui il était très critique. Je pense que nous retrouvons néanmoins chez Proudhon plusieurs façons de concevoir l’intérêt général, qu’il assimile, me semble-t-il, au problème de l’unité : (...) nous verrons qu’il estime qu’il existe de fausses unités et une réelle unité. Il est important de noter que Proudhon, dans son premier mémoire, se réclame de l’anarchisme. Il récuse donc le qualificatif de monarchiste, de démocrate, etc., mais revendique celui de républicain dans la mesure où il désigne la chose publique. (shrink)

Ricœur ends his Lectures on Ideology and Utopia by analyzing the works of Saint Simon and Fourier through the lens of the idea of utopia. In taking up these thinkers whom Engels labeled “utopian” socialist, we note that Ricœur did not deal equally with the work of another important socialist: Proudhon. My hypothesis is that it is possible to read Proudhon using Ricœur in that their approaches are similar at a number of points. Fruitful connections can be drawn between the (...) dialectic of the real and ideal developed by Proudhon and Ricœur’s dialectic of ideology and utopia. Both thinkers deal with justice in the form of a certain tension: a tension that for Ricœur requires practical wisdom, and a tension that for Proudhon requires an equilibrium of social and political forces. (shrink)

Ricœur ends his Lectures on Ideology and Utopia by analyzing the works of Saint Simon and Fourier through the lens of the idea of utopia. In taking up these thinkers whom Engels labeled “utopian” socialist, we note that Ricœur did not deal equally with the work of another important socialist: Proudhon. My hypothesis is that it is possible to read Proudhon using Ricœur in that their approaches are similar at a number of points. Fruitful connections can be drawn between the (...) dialectic of the real and ideal developed by Proudhon and Ricœur’s dialectic of ideology and utopia. Both thinkers deal with justice in the form of a certain tension: a tension that for Ricœur (beyond the deontology and teleology found to some extent in the dialectic of ideology and utopia) requires practical wisdom, and a tension that for Proudhon (beyond the ideal and the real) requires an equilibrium of social and political forces. (shrink)

Proudhon, en effet, pense systématiquement la guerre, loi universelle du genre humain, dans son rapport avec Dieu, c'est-à-dire l'Absolu.