Problems with mutualism?

[Misanthrope]

What are your problems with mutualism?

[yuon]

I don't have any problems with it as such. I believe that in a free society, there will be mutualists, and they will form into communities.

Seriously, mutualists are similar enough to syndicalists (indeed, most other anarchists) in the way they wish to organise factories and large farms so as they can basically be ignored in that regard.

The only important difference with other strands of anarchism is that mutualists are happy for there to be competition between different factories producing the same sorts of item.

And, so long as all are free, and all voluntarily live in such a community, I don't have any problem with it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Mutualism maintains wage slavery. As Communists we want capital to no longer exist.

[Black Sheep]

My problem is that its supporters are naive enough to go around and support the paradox of a classless and free, free market society.

[n0thing]

Mutualists tend to be much closer to the "anarcho"-capitalists than other socialist anarchists. Their conclusions to how the "free market" would deal with the problems caused by lack of social services; are biased, speculative, and sometimes pretty funny. Most of the mutualist theory is actually lifted from anarcho-capitalist theory. Which is basically all derived from conjuring up all the possible consequences of replacing social services with market services, choosing the consequence most beneficial to their politics, and hailing it as the only possible outcome.

I fucking hate these people.

[Jack]

It puts proletarians in competition with eachother.

[Blake's Baby]

No, mutialist theory isn't lifted from anarcho-cap theory, it's the other way round. Anarcho-mutualism has existed since the time of Proudhon.

But yes, the problem is that it has no fundamental challenge to capitalist relations. It's happy with petty-bourgeois/artisan/sco-operative production for a market, and
therefore it is a form of capitalism. Just a really inefficient one, without even the benefits of being able to provide for the world's needs.

[JazzRemington]

I'm sympathetic to Mutualism but I think historically most attempts to implement it in wide scale have failed. Proudhon himself said in a report to a conference that Mutualist experiments were failing due to them being unable to compete with Capitalist firms or simply becoming Capitalist firms overtime.

I understand places such as the Cincinatti Time Store and how they were successful, but I'm not sure of the extent of these places relationship to Mutualism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Most of the mutualist theory is actually lifted from anarcho-capitalist theory.Oh dear. An admittance of ineptitude. I'm curious as to how mutualism lifted ideas from the likes of Rothbard when mutualism predates even Marx.


Mutualism maintains wage slavery. As Communists we want capital to no longer exist.Ownership and direct benefit of capital exists in a communist association as well. You would not approve of a bum leeching from the surplus of goods and services. In effect, the difference between mutualism and communism is purely 1.) competition between firms and 2.) price mechanics.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It puts proletarians in competition with eachother.

Again, when talking about a scarcity-based system, the difference between market-exclusive socialism and market-based socialism is purely terminological outside of money. Suppose limits are achieved where we now have to decide between producing more automobiles or bikes with an engineered metal that resists aging. We don't have the capital goods necessary to produce both en masse, so we can only go one way or another. I want cars, because I can't ride a bike. Kenneth wants bikes, because she hates pollution. A vote is taken, and I lose. In effect, you are witnessing a form of competition manifest itself.


I'm sympathetic to Mutualism but I think historically most attempts to implement it in wide scale have failed. Er, and communism hasn't?


Proudhon himself said in a report to a conference that Mutualist experiments were failing due to them being unable to compete with Capitalist firms or simply becoming Capitalist firms overtime.The French Republic during Proudhon's time was different than no other government: the state was benefiting hierarchical capitalist firms via land subsidies, intellectual property, and exemplary corporate benefits. Proudhon's response to all of this was actually an abandonment of idealistic anarchism in favor of some quick government reform via progressive income taxes supporting mutualist banks.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that's a bit fuzzy on what mutualism actually is?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Free markets without capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

[Lynx]

Are there any classic discussion threads we could revisit?

[Agrippa]

What are your problems with mutualism?

The Poverty of Philosophy (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/index.htm) pretty much sums it up.

[yuon]

Are there any classic discussion threads we could revisit?

Look at the bottom of the page, there seem to be a few down there.

---

Also, to all the people claiming that mutualism = capitalism, or that mutualism gets ideas from "anarcho-captilaism", you're wrong.

Mutualism would have a "free market", but it takes a lot more than a free market to have capitalism. Markets have existed for thousands of years, capitalism, only a few hundred (at most).

Mutualists (like all market socialist types that I know of) reject ownership beyond possession. That is, you can't "own" something, unless you use it.

That feature alone makes it incompatible with capitalism (which requires that people be able to accumulate control of resources far beyond what they can use, that is "capital").

So yeah, how about you go and read a bit before parroting what all you friends have said?

[Nwoye]

Mutualism maintains wage slavery. As Communists we want capital to no longer exist.
Umm no it doesn't. Proudhon and the Mutualists who follow after him are socialists, and as such they oppose private control of capital as unjust and exploitative - just like you do.


Again, when talking about a scarcity-based system, the difference between market-exclusive socialism and market-based socialism is purely terminological outside of money. Suppose limits are achieved where we now have to decide between producing more automobiles or bikes with an engineered metal that resists aging. We don't have the capital goods necessary to produce both en masse, so we can only go one way or another. I want cars, because I can't ride a bike. Kenneth wants bikes, because she hates pollution. A vote is taken, and I lose. In effect, you are witnessing a form of competition manifest itself.
This is a really good point.

[Misanthrope]

Mutualism maintains wage slavery. As Communists we want capital to no longer exist.

Are you opposed to Bakunin's collectivist anarchism then?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Mutualism maintains wage slavery.

No it doesn't. Wage slavery cannot exist in a society where all property ownership is based on possession, which by definition puts the workers using a piece of capital in control of that piece of capital.

Mutualism has its problems, of course (as do syndicalism and communism, for that matter). However, this is definitely not one of them. After all, it was the mutualist Proudhon who declared "Property is theft!", referring to the exploitative nature of capitalist property arrangements.

[MarxSchmarx]

The Poverty of Philosophy (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/index.htm) pretty much sums it up.

This. At best, mutualism is an idyllic relic of the early 19th century. It ignores the socialization of production, and consequently provides no serious alternative to modern capitalism.

Perhaps nowhere does this idea break down than when one considers how value is assigned under this ideology. Mutualism's reliance on an efficient market type hypothesis for valuation and its "benign neglect" that this assumption has on working people betrays how fundamentally short-sighted it was, even for the time.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Are you opposed to Bakunin's collectivist anarchism then?

I accept that some sort of transitional stage after a revolution will probably consist of a society based along the lines of Anarcho-Collectivism. That is not to say this follows my ideal vision of an Anarchist society. As a Libertarian Communist I do not accept Capitals place in society and wish to see it abolished. Only then can a truly free society exist.

[Lynx]

Our job is to build economic models that work. Mutualism or socialist free markets deserve careful consideration and improvement.

[Durruti's Ghost]

It ignores the socialization of production, and consequently provides no serious alternative to modern capitalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Proudhon argue that large-scale industries (i.e., basically all industries today) should be controlled cooperatively by their workers rather than being broken up and controlled individually by their workers--basically the anarcho-syndicalist model? Or do you mean something else by the "socialization of production"?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm fairly confident it's a reference to the pervasive authoritarian streak on RevLeft where some want a unified, global (democratic) economy. As in, all resources are at the disposal of the collective, regardless of individual use.

Something markets can already accomplish, without subjugating the entire human population to a vote.


Mutualism's reliance on an efficient market type hypothesis for valuation and its "benign neglect" that this assumption has on working people betrays how fundamentally short-sighted it was, even for the time.Again, correct me if I'm being assumptive, but you seem to be establishing a premise around mutualists actually thinking markets can find a "perfect equilibrium." It's obviously a rough estimate on value - as is true for any system based in scarcity, since personal tastes wane depending on the time of day or mood. Obviously some market-oriented faculties like advertising and independence of firms misalign production in the pursuit of demand instead of wants, but communists should be happy about that: it contributes to inefficiency. If social communes can prove they are more efficient, they can exist inside of (and even dominate) a mutualist society.

[MarxSchmarx]

Mutualism's reliance on an efficient market type hypothesis for valuation and its "benign neglect" that this assumption has on working people betrays how fundamentally short-sighted it was, even for the time. Again, correct me if I'm being assumptive, but you seem to be establishing a premise around mutualists actually thinking markets can find a "perfect equilibrium." It's obviously a rough estimate on value - as is true for any system based in scarcity, since personal tastes wane depending on the time of day or mood. Obviously some market-oriented faculties like advertising and independence of firms misalign production in the pursuit of demand instead of wants, but communists should be happy about that: it contributes to inefficiency. If social communes can prove they are more efficient, they can exist inside of (and even dominate) a mutualist society.
I agree that such inefficiencies are endimic to any social system, but the error of mutualism is precisely when it considers "efficiency", especially of the market-driven sort, as a yard stick.

I may have been too vague in the earlier post, and for that I apologize. The problem is that once you accept the premise that the market most efficiently sets the price for most goods, the commodification of labor isn't far behind. The idea that labor can somehow be exempted from this market based pricing mechanism that is proposed for every other good, which, mutualists argue, is in any event based on labor, seems something of a stretch. Ultimately, such a separation would require a heavy handed regulatory body that would, at best, just recreate the state. At worse, it would be impossible to set a "market price" for all goods except labor, and I doubt the resulting inefficienies would be trivial.

But once mutualists accept the commodification of labor, then I see no real alterantive to reformist capitalism in their formulation.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Proudhon argue that large-scale industries (i.e., basically all industries today) should be controlled cooperatively by their workers rather than being broken up and controlled individually by their workers--basically the anarcho-syndicalist model? Or do you mean something else by the "socialization of production"?

This is not my reading of Proudhon. I understood Proudhon to empower owners with quite a bit of discretion, and that one could transfer ownership from occupation to occupation. So an electrician who, say, owns x % in, say, the telecom company can sell that upon moving - in effect, this translates into individual control, because the only way to avoid this would be to prevent that ownership of x%, or allow it but only allow certain choices to be made with said ownership. But if one can't really have control over what one owns, then in what sense is it ownership? At least according to the prevailing undrestanding of ownership at Proudhon's time, ownership implied substantial discretion and control.