What is Property? is a sustained inquiry posed as a single provocative question. Proudhon answers it at the outset with a deliberate shock: property is robbery. He means the answer to be read precisely, not as a slogan, comparing it to answering the question of what slavery is with the word murder. Property here is the right to draw an unearned increase from a thing, and his book is an argument that this right has no valid foundation.
He proceeds by demolishing the usual justifications one by one. Property is said to rest on occupation, but occupation would give each person only a right of use, limited by the equal claims of all others, not an exclusive and permanent domain. It is said to rest on civil law, but law only records and sanctions a fact it cannot create. It is said to rest on labor, yet Proudhon argues that labor, followed consistently, leads not to private appropriation of natural wealth but to equality, since the land and its raw materials are no one's product.
Central to the book is the distinction between possession and property. Possession is a matter of fact: the farmer, the tenant, the laborer hold and use a thing. Property is a matter of right that lets the owner claim a return even where he neither works nor uses. Proudhon defends the first and attacks the second, so his target is not the worker's hold on the products of his labor but the proprietor's claim to live on the labor of others.
His economic core is the idea of collective force. When many people work together their combined effort accomplishes what no sum of isolated workers could, yet the employer pays each only an individual daily wage and pockets the surplus the cooperation created. Proudhon presses examples such as two hundred grenadiers raising an obelisk in hours, and concludes that after every individual wage is paid, a collective force still remains unpaid, enjoyed unjustly by the proprietor.
The book ends by asking what should replace property and government founded on it. Proudhon refuses the existing labels and famously calls himself an anarchist, meaning not disorder but order without arbitrary command. He rejects communism as much as property, seeking instead a third form he names liberty: liberty that is equality because society requires it, that is anarchy because it admits the authority of law rather than of will, and that joins justice, equity, and variety into a single social principle.