Well, cool story, bro. But: > If you have a defense of the claim that Proudhon actually was a communist, even though he explicitly rejected key communist formulas, explicitly defended ideas (such as individual ownership of land, cost-price commercial exchange, economic competition, etc.) that they explicitly rejected, and in several places explicitly criticized communism and communists by name, *then I suggest that you bring that evidence forward.* Or you can just continue bullshitting without evidence. Your choice.

I am sure that you can. The question is whether you have read them with understanding. You may notice that the chapter I linked (from General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century) was not actually picked at "random," but rather because it includes an extended critique of one common formulation of communism (what Proudhon mocks as the "declension formula," "From each according to his [sic] abilities, to each according to his [sic] needs") and defends an alternative ideal (specifically cost-price commercial exchange). You might also read [Organization of Economic Forces](http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/general-idea-of-the-revolution/organization-of-economic-forces) from the same book, if it helps to have a chapter in which Proudhon explicitly and repeatedly attacks "communism" and "communists" by name. If you have a defense of the claim that Proudhon actually was a communist, even though he explicitly rejected key communist formulas, explicitly defended ideas (such as individual ownership of land, cost-price commercial exchange, economic competition, etc.) that they explicitly rejected, and in several places explicitly criticized communism and communists by name, then I suggest that you bring that evidence forward. In the meantime, I will have to say that the reason I deny Proudhon is a communist is because I *have* read his work.