"Mutualism"

[Howard509]

Well what are you doing here, then? Go forth and politely ask the state to dismantle!

That's precisely what Thoreau recommended.

[spiltteeth]

That's precisely what Thoreau recommended.

Dude, I spent an hour writing that essay and THAT is what you respond to?

[Howard509]

Oh, and according to Wiki
Agorists hold that the evils attributed to capitalism are not caused by laissez-faire (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Laissez-faire) but by government working together with private industry. By preferring the term "free market (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Free_market)", Agorists feel they are not bound by the implications of the term "capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Capitalism)".

If your curious how this society might look in practice, see all mid-region african states.

Are you familiar with mutualism? It's free market anti-capitalism.

[LeninKobaMao]

You still haven't been restricted yet? :ohmy:

'Free market' :lol:

[Howard509]

You still haven't been restricted yet? :ohmy:

'Free market' :lol:

Do you know anything about the history of anarchism? American 19th century anarchists were both anti-capitalist and anti-communist.

[spiltteeth]

Do you know anything about the history of anarchism? American 19th century anarchists were both anti-capitalist and anti-communist.

Well, I was hoping you'd respond to my essay, but, just for your own knowledge, you are a Right Libertarian, check out the Libertarian party, Glen Beck, Ron Paul, and the Missus Institute.

Again, as Chomsky has pointed out, if you would like to see how such a free market society would look in practice in the real world (in an actual Global context) I still say see all mid-region African countries.

[Howard509]

Well, I was hoping you'd respond to my essay, but, just for your own knowledge, you are a Right Libertarian, check out the Libertarian party, Glen Beck, Ron Paul, and the Missus Institute.

Again, as Chomsky has pointed out, if you would like to see how such a free market society would look in practice in the real world (in an actual Global context) I still say see all mid-region African countries.

I'm left-libertarian and you are obviously ignorant of anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

Mutualism is free market anti-capitalism. It's of the left and always has been. Duh.

[spiltteeth]

It was unfair of me to call you Right. I'll check out the link; but you know the mutualists are always criticizing Chomsky. really I meant in practice not theory(altho I believe there have actually been mutualist businesses but I do not mean isolated businesses or anything like the worker-controlled factories in Latin America, I mean in the context of a whole society with all the political ramifications of a mutualist societyetc) mutualism has -in my opinion - alot more in common with what Ron Paul describes as Liberalism because of what inevitably happens when free markets influence competition.

[spiltteeth]

Well, I read the link, still seems like Stateless Libertarianism to me. I mentioned those mid region African states because in many cases there are no laws to enforce aspects of the state that the mutualists claim as unfair (subsidies, tax breaks for the rich etc) so what happens? A multi-corporate conglomeration takes over that function, in essence.

[Howard509]

Under mutualism, there is no private property yet there is personal property. It's understood that property is theft.

[spiltteeth]

But, since there is still "competition in capital" it is capitalism largely in the sense that Libertarians think of capitalism. Its basically capitalism without taxes and tariffs.
I don't see how it is anti-capitalist, only anti-capitalism-as it exists-now
Benjamin Tucker describes it : "though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, [Proudhon] aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few...by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost."

The natural laws of competition, or the free market, is alive and well in many 3rd world nations and it most certainly does not socialize capitals effects.

Plus it still has money and wages, as Kropotkin criticized mutualism, a wage system in any form, whether "administered by Banks of the People or by workers' associations through labor cheques is a form of compulsion."

Plus mutualists completely ignore very real social and historical factors (which you need not be a Marxist to see the reality of) leading to the same type of naive false individualist liberty that Glenn Beck & co believe in which Bakunin criticized thus : "How ridiculous are the ideas of the individualists of... the Proudhonian mutualists who conceive society as the result of the free contract of individuals absolutely independent of one another and entering into mutual relations only because of the convention drawn up among men. As if these men had dropped from the skies, bringing with them speech, will, original thought, and as if they were alien to anything of the earth, that is, anything having social origin."

Seems to have more in common with right libertarian, despite some of its anarchist tendencies. In practice, I think it becomes completely Right.

[Howard509]

I familiar with Kevin Carson? Are you familiar with Proudhon? Do you understand the meaning of "Property is theft"? Mutualism is of the left, as it's opposed to private property.



So then what is the difference then between personal property and private property?

To put it simply on one hand you have your personal property, something that you own as a person something that you use in your day-to-day life, for example your house your CD collection and your car would all be considered to be part of your personal property, and I think we can all agree that there isn’t anything wrong with having a home of your own to live in, or a collection of CD’s that you like to listen to, or a car to take you from A to B when ever you so choose to go.

Now on the other hand you have what we call private property, which is entirely different from personal property, because from this kind of property an individual or a group of people can obtain profit. Basically private property is the factories, offices, warehouses and any other number of places a person can work, the tools that they use from the computer in the office to the machinery on the factory floor. All of the things that the majority of us (the workers) use to produce everything we have today.

You may be wondering why all of the things I’ve mentioned are considered “private” property; the means of producing wealth are considered private property because they are owned and controlled by a very small number of people, known as capitalists.

Now you may be saying ‘So what if they own everything, they pay us for the work that we do, everybody is happy’. Well what if I was to tell you that while you where out swapping your days work for a wage you where really being conned and robbed by your boss. How do you get the short end of the stick?

For arguments sake lets just say you work in a toy factory assembling toys. The boss buys in the toy parts; lets just say the total cost for one toy is €1 and you can assemble ten toys in an hour, and for this you get paid €10 an hour. The boss then takes the finished toys and sells them for say €50 each. So now the boss has just sold all the toys you made in that hour for €500, now the boss has to pay for the materials and your wages, so when you take them away he is left with a profit of €480 an hour.

But hang on a second you did all the work, why does he get €480 an hour while you only get €10. Well because in capitalism the small minority who have control of all the private property can do this everyday, they are robbing all of us each and everyday. So every time you hear about some company’s profits going up remember the just robbed them from you. Hence the famous anarchist slogan “Property is theft”.
http://www.wsm.ie/story/2664

[spiltteeth]

I know its on the left, like I said, in practice, despite its anarchist (leftist) tendencies (and the Wiki even says "mutualism is not necessarily anarchist") I think it has more in common with right libertarianism.
I already said this twice, and gave reasons and actual circumstances of why I think this, and quoted anarchist critiques of which I am in agreement.
Again, I don't see how its anti-capitalistic, it just a form of capitalism that seeks to have socialist effects.

[LeninKobaMao]

Do you know anything about the history of anarchism? American 19th century anarchists were both anti-capitalist and anti-communist.

Yeah a 'free market anti-capitalist' :lol:. Where have I heard the word 'free market' before?

[Искра]

I don't like mutualism that's why i'm communist...
I don't think that there's much anarchist who are mutualists

[Misanthrope]

I think mutualism could be a transitional period between capitalism and communism. I consider mututalists, syndicalists, collectivists, communist all comrades.

[Искра]

I don't like "transitional periods" history teaches me that they last too long.

[Misanthrope]

I don't like "transitional periods" history teaches me that they last too long.

Rome wasn't built in a day

[Howard509]

Where have I heard the word 'free market' before?

Free market anti-capitalists who recognize that capitalism isn't one?

[Howard509]

I don't think that there's much anarchist who are mutualists

Mutualism is actually the most widely accepted theory of anarchist economics. It explains how an economy free of both inequality and state involvement is possible. Are you familiar with the term "mutual aid"?



There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of >and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association >like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns >evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.
Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.
http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2007/01/ernest-lesigne-on-two-socialisms.html

[mel]

Mutualism is actually the most widely accepted theory of anarchist economics. It explains how an economy free of both inequality and state involvement is possible. Are you familiar with the term "mutual aid"?

There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of >and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association >like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns >evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.
Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.
http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspo...ocialisms.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2007/01/ernest-lesigne-on-two-socialisms.html)

Well you must be an expert, since you've heard of both kinds of socialism. I didn't even know there was more than one kind :crying:

[Howard509]

The human tendency toward mutual aid also explains why anarchism doesn't necessarily mean chaos. The majority of people would realize that it's in their own best interest to respect others' rights.

[Glenn Beck]

Do you know anything about the history of anarchism? American 19th century anarchists were both anti-capitalist and anti-communist.

You mean like 20th century fascists?

[Howard509]

You mean like 20th century fascists?

No, 19th century anarchists were anarchists.

[mel]

No, 19th century anarchists were anarchists.

And 20th century fascists were fascists.

Both were opposed to both capitalism and communism.

[scarletghoul]

Anarchists, fascists, fuedalists, all the same!

[Howard509]

And 20th century fascists were fascists.

Both were opposed to both capitalism and communism.

Yes, for very different reasons. Fascism and individualist anarchism shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

[mel]

Yes, for very different reasons. Fascism and individualist anarchism shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

Neither should "free market" and "anti-capitalism".

[Howard509]

Neither should "free market" and "anti-capitalism".

You're obviously ignoring what mutualism is as an economic and political philosophy. It has nothing to do with the state-guaranteed propertarianism called the "free market."



The major tenets of mutualism are free association, mutualist credit, contract (or federation), and gradualism (or dual-power). Mutualism is often described by its proponents as advocating an "anti-capitalist free market."
Contemporary mutualist author Kevin Carson holds that capitalism has been founded on "an act of robbery as massive as feudalism," and argues that capitalism could not exist in the absence of a state. He says "[i]t is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market"[6]. He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense, but says that when he talks about "capitalism" he is referring to what he calls "actually existing capitalism." He believes the term "laissez-faire capitalism" is an oxymoron because it has never existed. Carson argues the centralization of wealth into a class hierarchy is due to state intervention to protect the ruling class, by using a money monopoly, granting patents and subsidies to corporations, imposing discriminatory taxation, and intervening militarily to gain access to international markets. Carson’s thesis is that an authentic free market economy would not be capitalism as the separation of labor from ownership and the subordination of labor to capital would be impossible, bringing a class-less society where people could easily choose between working as a freelancer, working for a fair wage, taking part of a cooperative, or being an entrepreneur...
http://wiki.infoshop.org/Mutualism


Mutualism is free market anti-capitalism, as in free market socialism. Have you never heard of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon?

Proudhon, the founder of anarchist thought, was a free market anti-capitalist. Duh.

[robbo203]

I'm left-libertarian and you are obviously ignorant of anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

Mutualism is free market anti-capitalism. It's of the left and always has been. Duh.


In sentiment mutualism may be "anti-capitalist" but in practice, by its very advocacy of the insitituion of the market in the first place, it lends support to capitalism. It is an idealised romanticised backward-looking vision of petty commodity production when purportedly every individual had means of production at his or her disposal. It is, for this reason too, a completely unrealistic and unrealisable vision given the social character of the production process today.

The only thoroughly consistent anti-capitalist perspective is one that goes beyond the market and rejects statism as well

[Howard509]

In sentiment mutualism may be "anti-capitalist" but in practice, by its very advocacy of the insitituion of the market in the first place, it lends support to capitalism. It is an idealised romanticised backward-looking vision of petty commodity production when purportedly every individual had means of production at his or her disposal. It is, for this reason too, a completely unrealistic and unrealisable vision given the social character of the production process today.

The only thoroughly consistent anti-capitalist perspective is one that goes beyond the market and rejects statism as well

Capitalism is not the free market, it is a state guaranteed system of privilege. Without a government to enforce capitalist property rights, the human tendency toward mutual aid would produce equality, without need of coercion from above. Proudhon believed there should be workers' collectives based on voluntary association and mutual aid. If the majority of people gradually became involved in a black market mutualist economy, capitalism would whither away.

There's an obvious confusion on this forum of the propertarian understanding of a free market with the mutualist i.e. anarchist understanding.

[mel]

Capitalism is not the free market, it is a state guaranteed system of privilege. Without a government to enforce capitalist property relations, the human tendency toward mutual aid would produce equality, without need of coercion from above.

Maybe in your fantasy world. In the world the rest of us live in, the state would re-emerge as a collection of coercive, powerful private entities who take de-facto ownership of whatever they'd like in order to protect their property relations. As long as there are markets, there will be people who find a way to exploit them.

[robbo203]

Capitalism is not the free market, it is a state guaranteed system of privilege. Without a government to enforce capitalist property rights, the human tendency toward mutual aid would produce equality, without need of coercion from above. Proudhon believed there should be workers' collectives based on voluntary association and mutual aid. If the majority of people gradually became involved in a black market mutualist economy, capitalism would whither away.


I did not say capitalism was the free market. There are other forms of capitalism than the so called free market such as the state capitalism of the ex soviet union. What I said is that inevitably advocacy of a market, free or otherwise, will lead not to the withering away of capitalism but its consolidation. It is by transcending the market, not embracing it, that we can finally get rid of capitalism

[Howard509]

Maybe in your fantasy world. In the world the rest of us live in, the state would re-emerge as a collection of coercive, powerful private entities who take de-facto ownership of whatever they'd like in order to protect their property relations. As long as there are markets, there will be people who find a way to exploit them.

Again, you are equating the propertarian understanding of the market with the anarchist understanding. I recommend reading the Anarchist FAQ:



What about their support of the free market?

The central fallacy of the argument that support for markets equals support for capitalism is that many self-proclaimed socialists are not opposed to the market. Indeed, some of the earliest socialists were market socialists (people like Thomas Hodgskin and William Thompson, although the former ended up rejecting socialism and the latter became a communal-socialist). Proudhon, as noted, was a well known supporter of market exchange. German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer expounded a similar vision to Proudhon and called himself a "liberal socialist" as he favoured a free market but recognised that capitalism was a system of exploitation. ["Introduction", The State, p. vii] Today, market socialists like David Schweickart (see his Against Capitalism and After Capitalism) and David Miller (see his Market, State, and community: theoretical foundations of market socialism) are expounding a similar vision to Proudhon's, namely of a market economy based on co-operatives (albeit one which retains a state). Unfortunately, they rarely, if ever, acknowledge their debt to Proudhon (needless to say, their Leninist opponents do as, from their perspective, it damns the market socialists as not being real socialists).

It could, possibly, be argued that these self-proclaimed socialists did not, in fact, understand what socialism "really meant." For this to be the case, other, more obviously socialist, writers and thinkers would dismiss them as not being socialists. This, however, is not the case. Thus we find Karl Marx, for example, writing of "the socialism of Proudhon." [Capital, vol. 1, p. 161f] Engels talked about Proudhon being "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman" and of "the Proudhon school of Socialism." [Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 254 and p. 255] Bakunin talked about Proudhon's "socialism, based on individual and collective liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free associations." He considered his own ideas as "Proudhonism widely developed and pushed right to these, its final consequences" [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 100 and p. 198] For Kropotkin, while Godwin was "first theoriser of Socialism without government -- that is to say, of Anarchism" Proudhon was the second as he, "without knowing Godwin's work, laid anew the foundations of Anarchism." He lamented that "many modern Socialists" supported "centralisation and the cult of authority" and so "have not yet reached the level of their two predecessors, Godwin and Proudhon." [Evolution and Environment, pp. 26-7] These renown socialists did not consider Proudhon's position to be in any way anti-socialist (although, of course, being critical of whether it would work and its desirability if it did). Tucker, it should be noted, called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic school of Socialism." [Instead of a Book, p. 381] Little wonder, then, that the likes of Tucker considered themselves socialists and stated numerous times that they were.

Looking at Tucker and the Individualist anarchists we discover that other socialists considered them socialists. Rudolf Rocker stated that "it is not difficult to discover certain fundamental principles which are common to all of them and which divide them from all other varieties of socialism. They all agree on the point that man be given the full reward of his labour and recognise in this right the economic basis of all personal liberty. They all regard the free competition of individual and social forces as something inherent in human nature . . . They answered the socialists of other schools who saw in free competition one of the destructive elements of capitalist society that the evil lies in the fact we have too little rather than too much competition, since the power of monopoly has made competition impossible." [Pioneers of American Freedom, p. 160] Malatesta, likewise, saw many schools of socialism, including "anarchist or authoritarian, mutualist or individualist." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 95]

Adolph Fischer, one of the Haymarket Martyrs and contemporary of Tucker, argued that "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist. The anarchists are divided into two factions: the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists." The former "advocate the communistic or co-operative method of production" while the latter "do not advocate the co-operative system of production, and the common ownership of the means of production, the products and the land." [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 81] However, while not being communists (i.e. aiming to eliminate the market), he obviously recognised the Individualists Anarchists as fellow socialists (we should point out that Proudhon did support co-operatives, but they did not carry this to communism as do most social anarchists -- as is clear, Fischer means communism by the term "co-operative system of production" rather than co-operatives as they exist today and Proudhon supported -- see section G.4.2).

Thus claims that the Individualist Anarchists were not "really" socialists because they supported a market system cannot be supported. The simple fact is that those who make this claim are, at best, ignorant of the socialist movement, its ideas and its history or, at worse, desire, like many Marxists, to write out of history competing socialist theories. For example, Leninist David McNally talks of the "anarcho-socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon" and how Marx combated "Proudhonian socialism" before concluding that it was "non-socialism" because it has "wage-labour and exploitation." [Against the Market, p. 139 and p. 169] Of course, that this is not true (even in a Marxist sense) did not stop him asserting it. As one reviewer correctly points out, "McNally is right that even in market socialism, market forces rule workers' lives" and this is "a serious objection. But it is not tantamount to capitalism or to wage labour" and it "does not have exploitation in Marx's sense (i.e., wrongful expropriation of surplus by non-producers)" [Justin Schwartz, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 4, p. 982] For Marx, as we noted in section C.2, commodity production only becomes capitalism when there is the exploitation of wage labour. This is the case with Proudhon as well, who differentiated between possession and private property and argued that co-operatives should replace capitalist firms. While their specific solutions may have differed (with Proudhon aiming for a market economy consisting of artisans, peasants and co-operatives while Marx aimed for communism, i.e. the abolition of money via state ownership of capital) their analysis of capitalism and private property were identical -- which Tucker consistently noted (as regards the theory of surplus value, for example, he argued that "Proudhon propounded and proved [it] long before Marx advanced it." [Liberty, no. 92, p. 1])

There is another fallacy at the heart of the claim that markets and socialism do not go together, namely that all markets are capitalist markets. So another part of the problem is that the same word often means different things to different people. Both Kropotkin and Lenin said they were "communists" and aimed for "communism." However, it does not mean that the society Kropotkin aimed for was the same as that desired by Lenin. Kropotkin's communism was decentralised, created and run from the bottom-up while Lenin's was fundamentally centralised and top-down. Similarly, both Tucker and the Social-Democrat (and leading Marxist) Karl Kautsky called themselves a "socialist" yet their ideas on what a socialist society would be like were extremely different. As J.W. Baker notes, "Tucker considered himself a socialist . . . as the result of his struggle against 'usury and capitalism,' but anything that smelled of 'state socialism' was thoroughly rejected." ["Native American Anarchism," pp. 43-62, The Raven, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 60] This, of course, does not stop many "anarcho"-capitalists talking about "socialist" goals as if all socialists were Stalinists (or, at best, social democrats). In fact, "socialist anarchism" has included (and continues to include) advocates of truly free markets as well as advocates of a non-market socialism which has absolutely nothing in common with the state capitalist tyranny of Stalinism. Similarly, they accept a completely ahistorical definition of "capitalism," so ignoring the massive state violence and support by which that system was created and is maintained.

The same with terms like "property" and the "free market," by which the "anarcho"-capitalist assumes the individualist anarchist means the same thing as they do. We can take land as an example. The individualist anarchists argued for an "occupancy and use" system of "property" (see next section for details). Thus in their "free market," land would not be a commodity as it is under capitalism and so under individualist anarchism absentee landlords would be considered as aggressors (for under capitalism they use state coercion to back up their collection of rent against the actual occupiers of property). Tucker argued that local defence associations should treat the occupier and user as the rightful owner, and defend them against the aggression of an absentee landlord who attempted to collect rent. An "anarcho"-capitalist would consider this as aggression against the landlord and a violation of "free market" principles. Such a system of "occupancy and use" would involve massive violations of what is considered normal in a capitalist "free market." Equally, a market system which was based on capitalist property rights in land would not be considered as genuinely free by the likes of Tucker.

In summary, the "free market" as sought by (say) Tucker would not be classed as a "free market" by right-wing "libertarians." So the term "free market" (and, of course, "socialism") can mean different things to different people. As such, it would be correct to state that all anarchists oppose the "free market" by definition as all anarchists oppose the capitalist "free market." And, just as correctly, "anarcho"-capitalists would oppose the individualist anarchist "free market," arguing that it would be no such thing as it would be restrictive of property rights (capitalist property rights of course). For example, the question of resource use in an individualist society is totally different than in a capitalist "free market" as landlordism would not exist. This is a restriction on capitalist property rights and a violation of a capitalist "free market." So an individualist "free market" would not be considered so by right-wing "libertarians" due to the substantial differences in the rights on which it would be based (with no right to capitalist private property being the most important).

In summary, the "free market" as sought by (say) Tucker would not be classed as a "free market" by right-wing "libertarians." So the term "free market" (and, of course, "socialism") can mean different things to different people. As such, it would be correct to state that all anarchists oppose the "free market" by definition as all anarchists oppose the capitalist "free market." And, just as correctly, "anarcho"-capitalists would oppose the individualist anarchist "free market," arguing that it would be no such thing as it would be restrictive of property rights (capitalist property rights of course). For example, the question of resource use in an individualist society is totally different than in a capitalist "free market" as landlordism would not exist. This is a restriction on capitalist property rights and a violation of a capitalist "free market." So an individualist "free market" would not be considered so by right-wing "libertarians" due to the substantial differences in the rights on which it would be based (with no right to capitalist private property being the most important).

All this means that to go on and on about individualist anarchism and it support for a free market simply misses the point. No one denies that individualist anarchists were (and are) in favour of a "free market" but this did not mean they were not socialists nor that they wanted the same kind of "free market" desired by "anarcho"-capitalism or that has existed under capitalism. Of course, whether their economic system would actually result in the abolition of exploitation and oppression is another matter and it is on this issue which social anarchists disagree with individualist anarchism not whether they are socialists or not.
http://infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html#secg11


Proudhon supported the free market and opposed capitalist private property, since it requires the state to exist. How is that hard to understand? The willful ignorance on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

[robbo203]

Proudhon supported the free market and opposed capitalist private property, since it requires the state to exist. How is that hard to understand? The willful ignorance on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

I think most folk here probably appreciate the distinction you are trying to make. Nevertheless, you still have not addressed the main point. How are you going to get from capitalist "private property" to a so called anti-capitalist free market when what you are advocating - a market system -reinforces the very thing to which you are nominally opposed. You have yet to grasp that the mutualism retains the very basis upon which the state and capitalism will INEVITABLY re-emerge even if it were remotely possible to bring about a mutualistic economy within the framework of capitalism

[Howard509]

I think most folk here probably appreciate the distinction you are trying to make. Nevertheless, you still have not addressed the main point. How are you going to get from capitalist "private property" to a so called anti-capitalist free market when what you are advocating - a market system -reinforces the very thing to which you are nominally opposed.

Again, you are equating the propertarian market system with the anarchist market system, which is a false comparison. You are insisting that a market system is and must be a propertarian market system without any alternative. That is a false dilemma. Capitalist property exists, not because of the free market, but because of the state which protects this property.

How many times do you need to be told that capitalism and the free market are not one and the same? How many times do you need to be told that anarchists have a radically different understanding of the market system than capitalists? Did you actually read what the Anarchist FAQ says on this?

When 19th century anarchists say they support the "free market," they obviously don't mean the capitalist market. It's two radically different concepts. Duh.

A capitalist class could not arise from a free market that makes capitalist property impossible. Duh.

[robbo203]

How many times do you need to be told that capitalism and the free market are not one and the same? How many times do you need to be told that anarchists have a radically different understanding of the market system than capitalists? Did you actually read what the Anarchist FAQ says on this?

Er ...excuse me but I was one that was telling you that capitalism and the free market are not the same and that you can get other forms of capitalism than laissez faire capitalism - for example Soviet style state capitalism. In your haste to rush off a rapid response did you overlook this.? Laissez Faire capitalism is a subset of capitalism and not equivalent to it.

Now I am pretty familiar with the writings of mutualists like Carson so you you dont need to lecture me on the subject. As I said I appreciate very well the distinction you are trying to make between your anti-capitalist free market and free market capitalism. My argument is rather different. I am saying that your anti-capitalist free market well inevitably end up as capitalism despite your intentions and not because of them. Perhaps you need to address this argument rather than ranting on about a distinction I am well familiar with.

By the way, you talk of the anarchist view of the market being different from the capitalists'. Perhaps you may not be aware but many anarchists would totally reject the market as well. Mutualism is a distinctly minority tradition within anarchist circles

.


When 19th century anarchists say they support the "free market," they obviously don't mean the capitalist market. It's two radically different concepts. Duh.

A capitalist class could not arise from a free market that makes capitalist property impossible. Duh.


Please stop saying "duh". Its irritating, adds nothing to the argument and just makes you sound silly. OK you have made a claim that a capitalist class could not arise from a free market. Now substantiate it! Demonstrate what countervaling forces would come into play given a competitive free market economy based on private ownership of the means of production that would prevent a capitalist class from emerging. This should be interesting

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some actual criticism based outside of rhetoric would be nice.


A multi-corporate conglomeration takes over that function, in essence.Do you not see the irony in blaming market failure for conglomerates backed by states via subsidies, personhood protection, and unfair taxation schemes? Don't get me wrong, I see plenty of the inherit flaws in markets, and I find most components of the Austrian School ludicrous (such as the tendency to dismiss Keynes as a fruit basket, or the blatant disregard for how markets need fractional reserve banking), but let's not refer back to straw men.




Plus mutualists completely ignore very real social and historical factors (which you need not be a Marxist to see the reality of) leading to the same type of naive false individualist liberty that Glenn Beck & co believe in which Bakunin criticized thus : "How ridiculous are the ideas of the individualists of... the Proudhonian mutualists who conceive society as the result of the free contract of individuals absolutely independent of one another and entering into mutual relations only because of the convention drawn up among men. As if these men had dropped from the skies, bringing with them speech, will, original thought, and as if they were alien to anything of the earth, that is, anything having social origin."

Seems to have more in common with right libertarian, despite some of its anarchist tendencies. In practice, I think it becomes completely Right.

Since mutualists oppose the capitalist class as a whole, I don't see how you can reach the conclusion it is "Right." Quoting Bakunin doesn't really adhere to the principle of justified criticism.

Speaking of Mises.org, there seems to be an a priori application of knowledge here. If stating "markets are incompatible with leftism, for no other reason than I say so," then of course mutualism is right. However, mutualists are putting forward the suggestion that markets can be used to reduce the impact of property stratification by empowering worker-owned and worker-coordinated firms in fairly efficient ways.

[Plagueround]

Mutualism is free market anti-capitalism, as in free market socialism. Have you never heard of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon?

Proudhon, the founder of anarchist thought, was a free market anti-capitalist. Duh.

This is the kind of response that could only come from the internet. In real life, someone would have knocked your teeth down your throat by now. :laugh:

[mel]

Again, you are equating the propertarian understanding of the market with the anarchist understanding. I recommend reading the Anarchist FAQ:



Proudhon supported the free market and opposed capitalist private property, since it requires the state to exist. How is that hard to understand? The willful ignorance on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

I'm not confusing anything with anything. I've read the anarchist FAQ and I"m familiar with mutualism. You're confusing your continued insistence that anybody who disagrees with you is simply unfamiliar with your position with an argument.

[Искра]

Anarchists, fascists, fuedalists, all the same!

Lenin, Stalin, Mao - all the same - dead.

[Plagueround]

Lenin, Stalin, Mao - all the same - dead.

I'm not understanding how someone being dead means their ideas and accomplishments should be disregarded. If this were the case, when my mother dies I'd have to refuse to tie my shoes.

[Искра]

My comment dosen't mean anything it's just stupid response to stupid comment made by scarletghoul.
How can somebody say that fascists, anarchist and feudalists are the same. That can be only said to provoke people.

[Howard509]

By the way, you talk of the anarchist view of the market being different from the capitalists'. Perhaps you may not be aware but many anarchists would totally reject the market as well. Mutualism is a distinctly minority tradition within anarchist circles


As you could have read in the Anarchist FAQ, Bakunun admittedly based his economics on Proudhon. All anarchist economics, whether individualist or communist, is in debt to Proudhon's concept of mutual aid.



Demonstrate what countervaling forces would come into play given a competitive free market economy based on private ownership of the means of production that would prevent a capitalist class from emerging. This should be interesting

Have you read Das Kapital? The capitalist class arose because of state privilege, not a free market.

How many times do you need to be told that capitalist private property would not exist in a mutualist economy? Proudhon's most famous statement is that property is theft.



So then what is the difference then between personal property and private property?

To put it simply on one hand you have your personal property, something that you own as a person something that you use in your day-to-day life, for example your house your CD collection and your car would all be considered to be part of your personal property, and I think we can all agree that there isn’t anything wrong with having a home of your own to live in, or a collection of CD’s that you like to listen to, or a car to take you from A to B when ever you so choose to go.

Now on the other hand you have what we call private property, which is entirely different from personal property, because from this kind of property an individual or a group of people can obtain profit. Basically private property is the factories, offices, warehouses and any other number of places a person can work, the tools that they use from the computer in the office to the machinery on the factory floor. All of the things that the majority of us (the workers) use to produce everything we have today.

You may be wondering why all of the things I’ve mentioned are considered “private” property; the means of producing wealth are considered private property because they are owned and controlled by a very small number of people, known as capitalists.

Now you may be saying ‘So what if they own everything, they pay us for the work that we do, everybody is happy’. Well what if I was to tell you that while you where out swapping your days work for a wage you where really being conned and robbed by your boss. How do you get the short end of the stick?

For arguments sake lets just say you work in a toy factory assembling toys. The boss buys in the toy parts; lets just say the total cost for one toy is €1 and you can assemble ten toys in an hour, and for this you get paid €10 an hour. The boss then takes the finished toys and sells them for say €50 each. So now the boss has just sold all the toys you made in that hour for €500, now the boss has to pay for the materials and your wages, so when you take them away he is left with a profit of €480 an hour.

But hang on a second you did all the work, why does he get €480 an hour while you only get €10. Well because in capitalism the small minority who have control of all the private property can do this everyday, they are robbing all of us each and everyday. So every time you hear about some company’s profits going up remember the just robbed them from you. Hence the famous anarchist slogan “Property is theft”.
http://www.wsm.ie/story/2664


Mutualism, by definition, is based on mutual aid, not a competitive free market based on private ownership of the means of production. The most basic observation of mutualism is that, without the state, capitalist property wouldn't exist.

[Искра]

I can't agree with you on this. I think that most of anarchist "owe" more to Marx then to Proudhon. Bakunin and Kropotkin build their theory more on Marx then on Proudhon.

And also, capitalists are not privileged only because of state, the marked makes them privileged more. Because, on market they can show their full strength. State is just back up.

[Howard509]

This is the kind of response that could only come from the internet. In real life, someone would have knocked your teeth down your throat by now. :laugh:

In real life, a person should be able to understand that capitalist private property and the mutualist free market are mutually exclusive. Just read the Anarchist FAQ.

[Smash DEM BMP]

Yea nice reponse howard a rep for you i think.

[Howard509]

I can't agree with you on this. I think that most of anarchist "owe" more to Marx then to Proudhon. Bakunin and Kropotkin build their theory more on Marx then on Proudhon.



Bakunin talked about Proudhon's "socialism, based on individual and collective liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free associations." He considered his own ideas as "Proudhonism widely developed and pushed right to these, its final consequences" [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 100 and p. 198] For Kropotkin, while Godwin was "first theoriser of Socialism without government -- that is to say, of Anarchism" Proudhon was the second as he, "without knowing Godwin's work, laid anew the foundations of Anarchism." He lamented that "many modern Socialists" supported "centralisation and the cult of authority" and so "have not yet reached the level of their two predecessors, Godwin and Proudhon." [Evolution and Environment, pp. 26-7] These renown socialists did not consider Proudhon's position to be in any way anti-socialist (although, of course, being critical of whether it would work and its desirability if it did). Tucker, it should be noted, called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic school of Socialism." [Instead of a Book, p. 381] Little wonder, then, that the likes of Tucker considered themselves socialists and stated numerous times that they were.
http://www.anonym.to/?http://infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html#secg11




And also, capitalists are not privileged only because of state, the marked makes them privileged more. Because, on market they can show their full strength. State is just back up.

If capitalists have an unfair advantage in the market, which of course is not a free market, it's because the state has given it to them.

Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege
by Kevin A. Carson
http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html

The capitalist class historically arose because of state privilege, not a free market.

[spiltteeth]

I still don't see how this can be argued, as I've said a couple times now, altho they certainly are not mutalist, mid-region African countries have states that do not enforce capitalism in the way mutualists describe it, and so have a capitalism much closer to what Proud en described than say, in America or england, and yet people most definitely do not see things as Prouden predicted, the very nature of competition in the market place has created all the misery and inequalities that anyone would expect, as Bakunin said in the quote I used above.

[Howard509]

I still don't see how this can be argued, as I've said a couple times now, altho they certainly are not mutalist, mid-region African countries have states that do not enforce capitalism in the way mutualists describe it, and so have a capitalism much closer to what Proud en described than say, in America or england, and yet people most definitely do not see things as Prouden predicted, the very nature of competition in the market place has created all the misery and inequalities that anyone would expect, as Bakunin said in the quote I used above.

When market socialists like Proudhon use the term "free market," they mean a system of voluntary exchange and voluntary association. In these African countries you speak of, does the state protect a capitalist understanding of property rights?

[anticap]

Markets are competitive, not cooperative. (http://www.zcommunications.org/zvideo/videoShorts/57) Remind me again why I ought to be competing with my fellow humans rather than cooperating with them. It's one thing for humans living in different areas to distribute resources to one another. That's as it should be. But that's not a market. A market is where they exchange goods not because they are in solidarity with one another, but because they seek to gain a leg up on one another. That's the exact opposite of what we communists want.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Markets are competitive, not cooperative. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.zcommunications.org/zvideo/videoShorts/57) Communism is competitive as well; it's just masked in a different shade of red. When you vote on an issue of production, losers and winners emerge. Unless we want to speak of some imaginary consenses-based society, the argument "competition is bad" doesn't hold any true meaning.

Again I request from critics an actual economic criticism instead of rhetorical debates.

[anticap]

Communism is predicated on solidarity, not gaining a leg up on others. This difference is fundamental.

When you demand "actual economic criticism," you do what the Austrianites do, when they define "economics" as "Austrian economics." Any criticism you get from non-mutualists will be rejected as not based on mutualist theory. ("Mainstream" capitalist economists do this as well. "Economics" is whatever the academic economists are indoctrinating the latest round of university students with. Everything else is "heterodox" and invalid by definition.)

[Plagueround]

In real life, a person should be able to understand that capitalist private property and the mutualist free market are mutually exclusive. Just read the Anarchist FAQ.

I've read it from start to finish. The Anarchist FAQ is not some end all be all sacred tome, simply reading it does not mean one must automatically accept its premises. To properly defend your ideas, you'll need more than such a simple appeal to authority (or um...appeal to anti-authority? ;) ) It also doesn't change the fact that you're acting like a lofty condescending prick. If your assertion is that people must be the change they wish to see, start by being civil.

By the way...thus far, I've neither given support to or condemned your ideas.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

According to the Carson text you linked to, "It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege, without which its survival is unimaginable." But even Tucker recognized that this was not the case, and that centralization of capital had advanced so much that you would have to forcefully expropriate the property of large corporations in order to get rid of capitalism. I don't understand why any semblance of exploitation would be retained if you're going through the trouble of expropriating the capitalists besides some romanticism of small businesses.

[spiltteeth]

When market socialists like Proudhon use the term "free market," they mean a system of voluntary exchange and voluntary association. In these African countries you speak of, does the state protect a capitalist understanding of property rights?

No, thats why I I've brought it up several times.

[robbo203]

As you could have read in the Anarchist FAQ, Bakunun admittedly based his economics on Proudhon. All anarchist economics, whether individualist or communist, is in debt to Proudhon's concept of mutual aid. .

Depends what you by being "in debt to Proudhon's concept of mutual aid". Peter Kropotkin who incidentally wrote a book called Mutual Aid to counter the influence of social darwinism had this to say about an anarchist society


"Common possession of the necessaries for production implies common enjoyment of the fruits of the common production; and we consider that an equitable organisation of society can only arise when every wage-system is abandoned, and when everybody, contributing for the common well-being to the full extent of his capacities, shall enjoy also from the common stock of society to the fullest possible extent of his needs "(1887, Anarchism Communism: Its Basis and Principles, p. 59).



Kropotkins notion of anarchist economics and indeed that of many other anarchists as well, were markedly different from Proudhon's which retained the idea of wage labour for example



Have you read Das Kapital? The capitalist class arose because of state privilege, not a free market..

Yes Ive read Das Kapital. Have you? It is too simplistic to say that the capitalist class arose "because of state privilege" though it was certainly aided by the state notably in the era of mercantile capitalism. By that is besides the point. Even if one were to assume for the sake of argument a non-capitalist free market economy without a state I would maintain that the very nature of such an economy as a MARKET economy would mean the incremental and ineluctable build up of economic inequalities leading ultimately the appearance of class divisions and the monopolisation of the means of production by a few. If you want to retain a market system then you have to accept what goes with it - economic competition and its inevitable consequences



How many times do you need to be told that capitalist private property would not exist in a mutualist economy? ..

And how many times do you need to be told that a mutualist economy would sooner or later develop capitalist private property as an inevitable expression of it market character

[Howard509]

No, thats why I I've brought it up several times.

Proudhon also believed that the majority of people would have to renounce private property rights, either voluntarily or by force.

[Howard509]

Markets are competitive, not cooperative. (http://www.zcommunications.org/zvideo/videoShorts/57) Remind me again why I ought to be competing with my fellow humans rather than cooperating with them. It's one thing for humans living in different areas to distribute resources to one another. That's as it should be. But that's not a market. A market is where they exchange goods not because they are in solidarity with one another, but because they seek to gain a leg up on one another. That's the exact opposite of what we communists want.

You're being so ignorant of anarchist history, man. The left anarchists in the United States supported a free market in which people receive equal pay for equal work, which means that there cannot be exploitation of labor. Are you familiar with "cost the limit of price"? This is basic.

[Howard509]

And how many times do you need to be told that a mutualist economy would sooner or later develop capitalist private property as an inevitable expression of it market character

That's not true, as long as the people refuse to let private capitalists own the means of production. An anarchist society can democratically agree not to allow corporations, for example, to exist.

[Howard509]

According to the Carson text you linked to, "It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege, without which its survival is unimaginable." But even Tucker recognized that this was not the case, and that centralization of capital had advanced so much that you would have to forcefully expropriate the property of large corporations in order to get rid of capitalism. I don't understand why any semblance of exploitation would be retained if you're going through the trouble of expropriating the capitalists besides some romanticism of small businesses.

The corporation would never have existed without state privilege. Further, the state grants them contracts, subsidies, bail outs, and legal personhood. The state fights wars to steal resources for them. Without all this, there may still be private companies, but they certainly wouldn't have the same concentrated power they have today. Perhaps much less.

[Howard509]

Communism is predicated on solidarity, not gaining a leg up on others. This difference is fundamental.

When you demand "actual economic criticism," you do what the Austrianites do, when they define "economics" as "Austrian economics." Any criticism you get from non-mutualists will be rejected as not based on mutualist theory. ("Mainstream" capitalist economists do this as well. "Economics" is whatever the academic economists are indoctrinating the latest round of university students with. Everything else is "heterodox" and invalid by definition.)

As an anarchist, I have a Marxian, rather than Austrian, understanding of capitalism. That does not mean that I'm a Marxist. I call this mutualism because it means socialism based on free mutual aid rather than through state force.

[anticap]

You're being so ignorant of anarchist history, man. The left anarchists in the United States supported a free market in which people receive equal pay for equal work, which means that there cannot be exploitation of labor. Are you familiar with "cost the limit of price"? This is basic.

What does any of this have to do with my comment?


As an anarchist, I have a Marxian, rather than Austrian, understanding of capitalism. That does not mean that I'm a Marxist. I call this mutualism because it means socialism based on free mutual aid rather than through state force.

That's nice. Why are you telling me this?

You appear to be quoting others at random, as an excuse to say stuff. I'll thank you to please take care not to quote me when you do this. If you do quote me, please take care to relate what you say to what you quote. Thanks!

[Howard509]

You appear to be quoting others at random, as an excuse to say stuff. I'll thank you to please take care not to quote me when you do this. If you do quote me, please take care to relate what you say to what you quote. Thanks!

It's not my problem if you don't understand mutualism.

[mel]

It's not my problem if you don't understand mutualism.

It is your fault that you think that anybody who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand your position.

You need to face the reality that there will be people who understand everything you are saying and still think you're wrong.

[Howard509]

It is your fault that you think that anybody who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand your position.

You need to face the reality that there will be people who understand everything you are saying and still think you're wrong.

Do you believe that a non-propertarian free market is impossible?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The corporation would never have existed without state privilege. Further, the state grants them contracts, subsidies, bail outs, and legal personhood. The state fights wars to steal resources for them. Without all this, there may still be private companies, but they certainly wouldn't have the same concentrated power they have today. Perhaps much less.

You pretty much ignored what I said in favor of repetition. Creating your mutualism is going to require expropriating the capitalists, and if you're going to do that, why not just abolish exploitation altogether? What exactly is the benefit of retaining the market?

[ZeroNowhere]

It may not be completely relevant to the discussion at hand, but Howard, there is a button on your posts which says 'Edit' and is intended to mean that you don't have to post hundreds of times in a row.'

Other than that, there is no 'anarchist economics' ('socialism as a system based on mutual aid' is not a form of economics. 'Evolution is completely irrelevant to socialism, and man has no innate tendency to mutual aid except inasmuch as it is necessary for his or her survival, though some people blow themselves up and so on, so even that is not certain' is not economics either, of course).


Mutualism is actually the most widely accepted theory of anarchist economics.I have never heard this claim before. That is because it is silly. Mutualism isn't a theory of economics. So, for example, some mutualists use some marginalist bollocks, others can use crappy interpretations of Marx (I've heard some argue that in their classless, socialist society, people will be paid according to the law of value. :D), others can be whatever the hell they want, really. Also, most anarchists are 'anarcho-commies' rather than mutualists.


And 20th century fascists were fascists.

Both were opposed to both capitalism and communism.You're thinking of 'feudalists'.


Anarchists, fascists, fuedalists, all the same!:D


Proudhon, the founder of anarchist thoughtReally? He was the first to use the word, if I recall correctly, but it would be rather silly to call him the founder of anarchism. Or any form of thought, really.


mutualist i.e. anarchist understanding.Hey, wait a minute...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Communism is predicated on solidarity, not gaining a leg up on others. This difference is fundamental.

When you demand "actual economic criticism," you do what the Austrianites do, when they define "economics" as "Austrian economics." Any criticism you get from non-mutualists will be rejected as not based on mutualist theory. ("Mainstream" capitalist economists do this as well. "Economics" is whatever the academic economists are indoctrinating the latest round of university students with. Everything else is "heterodox" and invalid by definition.)

I'm pretty well open to all schools of economics trying to make a point.

[robbo203]

That's not true, as long as the people refuse to let private capitalists own the means of production. An anarchist society can democratically agree not to allow corporations, for example, to exist.


If what you are now saying is that there will be no sectional or private ownership of the means of production then you have totally contradicted the whole basis of your argument about a mutualist economy being one based on the so called "free market". The free market implies economic exchange which in turn implies sectional ownership of the means of production since you cannot exchange what already belongs to you.. If on the other hand you do have economic exchange for the market that means you have private ownership of the means of production and there there is nothing whatsoever to stop some individuals accumulating this property at the expense of others eventuating in the appearance of class divisions. You have supplied no reason whatsoever why this would not be the case other than wishfully thinking that people will not let it happen. But if the people respect private ownership of the means of prodiction and the institution of the unhampered free market .why do you think for one moment that these same people would prevent the inevitable consequences of such institutions from asserting themselves - namely the apearance of a distinct capitalist class? Your argument just does not add up

[eyedrop]

If what you are now saying is that there will be no sectional or private ownership of the means of production then you have totally contradicted the whole basis of your argument about a mutualist economy being one based on the so called "free market". The free market implies economic exchange which in turn implies sectional ownership of the means of production since you cannot exchange what already belongs to you.. If on the other hand you do have economic exchange for the market that means you have private ownership of the means of production and there there is nothing whatsoever to stop some individuals accumulating this property at the expense of others eventuating in the appearance of class divisions. You have supplied no reason whatsoever why this would not be the case other than wishfully thinking that people will not let it happen. But if the people respect private ownership of the means of prodiction and the institution of the unhampered free market .why do you think for one moment that these same people would prevent the inevitable consequences of such institutions from asserting themselves - namely the apearance of a distinct capitalist class? Your argument just does not add up

I could see it function with possesional ownership, over the means of production, as long as it is non-exclusive. By non-exlcusive I mean that everyone who wants can join as a full and equal worker. As it is now with exclusive ownership every successful collective ends up as a corporation with the original members as the owners.

But I can't say I see much advantage by it instead of communal ownership.

[robbo203]

I could see it function with possesional ownership, over the means of production, as long as it is non-exclusive. By non-exlcusive I mean that everyone who wants can join as a full and equal worker. As it is now with exclusive ownership every successful collective ends up as a corporation with the original members as the owners.

But I can't say I see much advantage by it instead of communal ownership.


Good point. I think what you are referring is called "usufract" (not to be confused with usury!!) Yes, there is a place for that in a socialist/communist/anarchist economy but definitely not economic exchange (in the quid pro quo sense) and its associated phenomena - money , wages. buying and selling etc. All these things must necessarily disappear from such an economy because their very presence necessarily implies the existence of sectional or private ownership of the means of production. This is what I particularly object to about mutualism and its advocacy of so called free markets. It is not a particularly well thought approach despite its socialistic leanings. Ultimately it can very easily be co-opted by capitalism

As revolutionaries we have to keep always in mind that what we seek involves the "communistic abolition of buying and selling" (Communist Manifesto) That is to say, the abolition of the market as well as the state since the presence of either is clear proof of the non existence of genuine communism. And if its not communism that means we still have capitalism

[eyedrop]

I think what you are referring is called "usufract" (not to be confused with usury!!)

I had never heard the term before. But it fit's pretty close with some minor changes, mainly the part about "belongs to another".


u⋅su⋅fruct

 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/U01/U0175800) /ˈyuhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngzʊˌfrʌkt, -sʊ-, ˈyuzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngyʊ-, ˈyus-/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [yoo-zoo-fruhkt, -soo-, yooz-yoo-, yoos-] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA Use usufruct in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+usufruct+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)

–noun Roman and Civil Law. the right of enjoying all the advantages derivable from the use of something that belongs to another, as far as is compatible with the substance of the thing not being destroyed or injured.

[anticap]

"Usufruct" always reminds me of this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_James_Madison_-_September_6,_1789), one of Jefferson's more semi-anarchist writings.

[BabylonHoruv]

You mean like 20th century fascists?

A dog is not a cat
A duck is not a cat
therefore a dog is a duck.

[mel]

You mean like 20th century fascists?
A dog is not a cat
A duck is not a cat
therefore a dog is a duck.

Obvious troll was obvious.

[BabylonHoruv]

I believe scarletghoul was mocking the earlier post equating Anarchists and Fascists because both are opposed to both Capitalism and Communism.

[BabylonHoruv]

Markets are competitive, not cooperative. (http://www.zcommunications.org/zvideo/videoShorts/57) Remind me again why I ought to be competing with my fellow humans rather than cooperating with them. It's one thing for humans living in different areas to distribute resources to one another. That's as it should be. But that's not a market. A market is where they exchange goods not because they are in solidarity with one another, but because they seek to gain a leg up on one another. That's the exact opposite of what we communists want.

Life is best when people are doing a bit of both.

[BabylonHoruv]

Good point. I think what you are referring is called "usufract" (not to be confused with usury!!) Yes, there is a place for that in a socialist/communist/anarchist economy but definitely not economic exchange (in the quid pro quo sense) and its associated phenomena - money , wages. buying and selling etc. All these things must necessarily disappear from such an economy because their very presence necessarily implies the existence of sectional or private ownership of the means of production. This is what I particularly object to about mutualism and its advocacy of so called free markets. It is not a particularly well thought approach despite its socialistic leanings. Ultimately it can very easily be co-opted by capitalism

As revolutionaries we have to keep always in mind that what we seek involves the "communistic abolition of buying and selling" (Communist Manifesto) That is to say, the abolition of the market as well as the state since the presence of either is clear proof of the non existence of genuine communism. And if its not communism that means we still have capitalism


See my previous post about dogs and ducks. There are more than two options.

[Howard509]

Please keep in mind that I am not of the right and do not support capitalist property rights. Mutualists argue that, without the state, in a truly free market, capitalist property wouldn't exist because the people wouldn't allow it to exist. It's the state which grants special legal privileges and subsidies that make capitalist property possible.

Anarchism as a political philosophy began with Proudhon. To accuse that someone is a capitalist or supports capitalist property for agreeing with the founder of anarchism is absurd. Is anyone familiar with the term "market socialism"? It is not an oxymoron for those who understand the concept.



A second form of market socialism is called by its proponents free market socialism because it does not involve planners.[8] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon developed a theoretical system called mutualism, which attacks the legitimacy of existing property rights, subsidies, corporations, banking, and rent. Proudhon envisioned a decentralized market where people would enter the market with equal power, negating wage slavery.[9] Proponents believe that cooperatives, credit unions, and other forms of worker ownership will become viable without being subject to the state. Market socialism has also been used to describe some individualist anarchist works[10] which argue that free markets help workers and weaken capitalists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism


When the CATO Institute and other right-wing groups call for a "free market," they really mean laissez-fare for the poor and state support for the rich. When mutualists call for a "free market," they mean one in which the exploitation of labor no longer exists.

You're welcome to restrict me for not being a communist. I've seen members of this forum call for my restriction in other threads. But please don't accuse me of being a rightist or a capitalist. I am neither.



Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives. To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.
http://www.mutualist.org/index.html

[ZeroNowhere]

I believe scarletghoul was mocking the earlier post equating Anarchists and Fascists because both are opposed to both Capitalism and Communism.Wait, did somebody actually interpret that post as seriously saying that feudalists and anarchists are all the same? :blink:

[eyedrop]

Please keep in mind that I am not of the right and do not support capitalist property rights. Mutualists argue that, without the state, in a truly free market, capitalist property wouldn't exist because the people wouldn't allow it to exist. It's the state which grants special legal privileges and subsidies that make capitalist property possible.

I think there is a semantical point here. Now it seems like you are thinking that if we had a free market property rights couldn't exists. When it should be opposite, ie that first the property rights must be abolished first.

Do you support the usufruct principle on the question of the means of production?

I'm always vary of mutualists, not that I know any in real life, supporting free market reforms, or reforms favouring small business owners, today which isn't socialist in the least.

Not that the reforms free market enthusiasts actually results in more small businesses. Here they are usually just promoting that we must handle business more like the US, and as this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/aug/13/us-economy-healthcare-productivity) article says US scores shit on the small business scale.

(The article was pointed out to me by Gravedigger if I remember right)

[Howard509]

I'm really tired of all the factionalism within anarchism. The differences between mutualism and anarcho-communism are mainly semantic. Our common enemies are the state and exploitation, and that's all that matters. By mutualism, I mean a socialism of mutual consent. I think anarcho-communists embrace the same concept.

[robbo203]

I'm really tired of all the factionalism within anarchism. The differences between mutualism and anarcho-communism are mainly semantic. Our common enemies are the state and exploitation, and that's all that matters. By mutualism, I mean a socialism of mutual consent. I think anarcho-communists embrace the same concept.

Sorry but the differences are not just semantic. Mutualists do not reject the market; anarcho-communists do. That is a big big difference and goes to the heart of why we reject mutualism completely. Saying that mutualism is based on mutual consent means nothing. Capitalism is based on consent. Without working class consent or acquiesence in cauitalism, capitalism could not exist one day longer

[anticap]

Life is best when people are doing a bit of both.

A mere platitude. Competition is neither necessary nor beneficial.

[BabylonHoruv]

A mere platitude. Competition is neither necessary nor beneficial.


I disagree. Competition has spurred much of the best creations throughout history.

Human life should not be a struggle for survival, as it is for many now, but that doesn't mean that a certain level of competition is not beneficial. Some competition drives people to do their best.

[anticap]

I disagree. Competition has spurred much of the best creations throughout history.

Human life should not be a struggle for survival, as it is for many now, but that doesn't mean that a certain level of competition is not beneficial. Some competition drives people to do their best.

Just because competition can serve as a stimulus for creative activity doesn't mean that it is a necessary stimulus for creative activity. There are other possible stimuli, such as cooperation.

Whatever positives arise out of competition are countered by negatives. There is no negative side to cooperation.

Those who love competition seek to "best" others; to be judged "superior"; to divide the community into "winners" and "losers"; to turn comrades into opponents. These concepts will be foreign to any just society.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A mere platitude. Competition is neither necessary nor beneficial.
It is when talking about sports or video games or - hey, hey - debates.


Those who love competition seek to "best" othersEgads, you mean me wanting to best other students through superior academics was inherently negative? Since when was the drive to outperform others looked down upon? That's a philosophy no rational person should adhere to unless he or she lacks any real motivation. Cooperation and competition each have their uses, and in many situations are inseparable.

[mel]

It is when talking about sports or video games or - hey, hey - debates.

Egads, you mean me wanting to best other students through superior academics was inherently negative? Since when was the drive to outperform others looked down upon? That's a philosophy no rational person should adhere to unless he or she lacks any real motivation. Cooperation and competition each have their uses, and in many situations are inseparable.


This was my essay question once on the SATs, whether competition or cooperation was better. I wish I'd had the balls to just say what I was thinking and that it was a bullshit question.

[BabylonHoruv]

Just because competition can serve as a stimulus for creative activity doesn't mean that it is a necessary stimulus for creative activity. There are other possible stimuli, such as cooperation.

Whatever positives arise out of competition are countered by negatives. There is no negative side to cooperation.

Those who love competition seek to "best" others; to be judged "superior"; to divide the community into "winners" and "losers"; to turn comrades into opponents. These concepts will be foreign to any just society.

You are setting things in a competitive framework, between competition and cooperation as modes of operation when they actually work better in cooperation.

[Misanthrope]

Sorry but the differences are not just semantic. Mutualists do not reject the market; anarcho-communists do. That is a big big difference and goes to the heart of why we reject mutualism completely. Saying that mutualism is based on mutual consent means nothing. Capitalism is based on consent. Without working class consent or acquiesence in cauitalism, capitalism could not exist one day longer

(Anarcho)Collectivists don't reject wage labor, are they not anarchists? I think we as anarchists need to be open minded and realistic when it comes to examining what a post-capitalist society should look like. Being realistic entails that mutualism is probably more achievable than communism, that doesn't mean communism is not the ideal system. I think mutualism is more practical because it has some of the same characteristics as modern economic systems that humans have participated in for the last two hundred years. This doesn't mean that every single area must be mutualist. Commune A might be mutualist, commune B might be collectivist, Commune C might be a moneyless communist. Another thing we need to realize is that there isn't a notable economic theory or even a proposal for how currency should be eliminated.

Why are you presenting an argument you know is flawed?
"Capitalism is based on consent"