Calling people ignorant and naive while doing nothing to address the actual arguments isn't going to convince anyone.

In the passage you linked to, the author argues that property is impossible, which seems like a rather different argument than the one you are making.

in fact it’s the opposite

If you read Prudhon thoroughly you’ll understand that his critique is that the entire concept of capitalism is based on the concept of property (undisputed) and the concept of property is an entirely made up mythical thing (disputed)