It is completely otherwise in democracy, which according to the authors exists fully only at the moment of elections and for the formation of legislative power. …In every kind of government the deputy belongs to the powerful, not to the country… [It is required] that he be master of his vote, that is, to traffic in its sale, that the mandate have a specified term, of at least a year, during which the Government, in agreement with the deputies, does what it pleases and gives strength to the law through action by its own arbitrary will…, If monarchy is the hammer which crushes the People, democracy is the axe which divides it; the one and the other equally conclude in the death of liberty…. May I not likewise answer “Theft”? What they always want is inequality of fortunes, delegation of sovereignty, and government by influential people. Society would be based on the principle of voluntarism. But his recommendation of the abolition of banking and credit system was not the master solution to the deep- rooted crisis. The majority, half plus one of the votes. Property to him was a sum of abuses and that is why he denounced it. To sum up, any type of society other than federal type was disliked by Proudhon. The balance of contradic­tion is achieved and the power of exploitation is abolished when property is parcelled out and agriculture and industry are carried on by numerous small producers. But this is not possible. Other by-products of Proudhon’s fertile brain were the establishment of Ex­change Bank and the abolition of interest system. It has been observed by James Joll that importance of Proudhon’s work lies not so much in their theoretical arguments, but in his whole conception of the nature of man and society. For him man was the manifestation of certain virtues and vices and also a working unit. The communes would finally form a bigger federation. These traits of human character, according to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, were the chief causes of war. This working man is the basis of society. He wrote, “My ancestors on both sides were all free labourers famous for their boldness in resisting the claims of nobility. All content on this site is available for republishing under a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication. He also rejected the demand for national state on the basis of right to self-determination. There is some justification in treating property simply as “theft”. On the Jews, from Proudhon's notebooks, 1847. These are the obstacles to the attainment of equality. If people complain against these measures they are repressed, harassed, beaten and bullied, imprisoned and fined. Communism condemns the private property in the means of production. The result is that in the theory of the democrats the problem consists of eliminating, by the mechanism of sham universal suffrage, all ideas save one which stir opinion, and to declare sovereign that which has the majority. Woodcock maintains that the General Idea of Revolution is a study of revolutionary process and Proudhon presents it as a necessary phenomenon. In 1840 Proudhon published a book under the title “What is Property?” And through this he came to be known as a serious thinker.