Mutualism

[Ovi]

I used to dismiss everything that had to do with the market economy as capitalist, including "market anarchism". But I don't want to be ignorant; first of all, while I don't know much about the subject, it is a bit hard for me to take Proudhon as a capitalist; he did advocate worker self-management and was against private property as we know it today. (although being a racist is not a very anarchist argument)

While I'm against market economy because it fails to completely solve the social justice problem and it promotes competition instead of cooperation and solidarity, is it in any way against the broadest definition of anarchism? Mutualism might not work, might not be desirable or fair, but is it against anarchism? And by the way, does agorism have anything to do with mutualism? I've seen split opinions on this.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Agorism is not an ideology, really. It is a strategy of achieving a new society that, as far as I know, is typically (though not always) advocated by "anarcho"-capitalists, not mutualists. Mutualists support possession, not private property, and so would have no problem with the classic conception of socialist revolution--seizure of the means of production by the people using them. This conception contradicts the agorist conception, which, if socialist, would involve building worker-owned cooperatives until they naturally outcompeted capitalist firms on the market. All mutualists fall within the bounds of anarchism and socialism, provided they are in fact mutualists and not just "anarcho"-capitalists claiming to be mutualists; however, agorist mutualists are not revolutionaries, but reformists, at least in my opinion (in a way, the anarchist equivalent of the classic social democrats, who aimed to achieve socialism without an actual revolution).

[Искра]

I read much about this issue and all I can say about this is that this is just bollocks.
I know that this is not an argument but that's all I want to say.
Proudhon's theory was out soon as Marx made his. End of story.

[cenv]

but is it against anarchism?The money and the competition inherent in any market system are a source of hierarchy and authority. Mutualism will lead to a new class system, so it's against both anarchism and communism.

Plus, in an era with unprecedented productive capacity, there's no reason to try to abolish capitalist class relations without abolishing the commodity, money, the market, etc. when we can decisively smash capitalism and its economic structure.

But if you want to learn more about mutualism and decide for yourself, check out What is Mutualism? (http://www.panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.index.html)

[Durruti's Ghost]

I don't know that it will "inevitably" reproduce capitalist class relations, but I tend to agree that mutualism is likely not a stable system and that it will probably have to revert to capitalism or progress to collectivism or communism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If mutualism isn't anarchism, prepare to defend yourself against yet another etymologist squabble; since Proudhon was the first person to use "anarchy" as a description of an organized, stateless society, a separate conclusion that states "communism is not anarchism" might suffice as a rhetorical rebuttal, but since I upheld economic pluralism, I'll avoid that confrontation entirely.

A lot of new literature has emerged reinventing Proudhon's language and basic ideas for contemporary society. If you're truly interested in learning more about the subject, just look around the internet with common search queries. One of the more interesting aspects of this literature has to do with a synthesis of Proudhon and Marx where the two giants were separately right (because, gasp, Marx does have his own set of flaws).


I read much about this issue and all I can say about this is that this is just bollocks.
I know that this is not an argument but that's all I want to say.
Proudhon's theory was out soon as Marx made his. End of story.Brilliant.


probably have to revert to capitalism or progress to collectivism or communism.The latter, definitely, but there would still exist some remnants of mutualism such as voluntary collectivist networks that "market" towards membership.


(although being a racist is not a very anarchist argument)In all fairness, a lot of the 19th century socialist theorists were vehemently racist. Marx appears to be the exception.


it promotes competition instead of cooperation and solidarityMutualism promotes neither, actually. Or perhaps both. Whatever way you want to look at it. Competition is not inherently bad, though, and in many fine instances, functional. As a quick example, we can peer into a communist society where two designers compete against each other with the intent of making the "best" t-shirt design, as determined by number of "purchases/pick-ups/whatever the fuck term people use these days to get around market lingo."


there's no reason to try to abolish capitalist class relations without abolishing the commodity, money, the market, etc. when we can decisively smash capitalism and its economic structure.
Yeah, because violent economic shifts have always proved to be more productive, sustainable, and realistic than a gradual evolution. Your argument also lacks any real clarity when it comes to a purpose. There's a "law" that states one should look at the simplest answer, because more often than not, it's right. What you espouse completely circumnavigates this advice by suggesting there will not only be a quick, violent, and productive revolution ("decisively smash capitalism") but that it will be uniform in application. If even one split of ideology occurs (and it will - sorry to tell you), people will have a choice between "Commune A" and "Commune B." Even supposing these two sides trade, if Commune A employs energy accounting, and Commune B utilizes labor vouchers, the fact people are deciding between these two organizations is inherently mutualistic.

Mutualism is thus the only system which precludes free association.

[cenv]

Mutualism promotes neither, actually. Or perhaps both. Whatever way you want to look at it. Competition is not inherently bad, though, and in many fine instances, functional. As a quick example, we can peer into a communist society where two designers compete against each other with the intent of making the "best" t-shirt design, as determined by number of "purchases/pick-ups/whatever the fuck term people use these days to get around market lingo."

There's nothing wrong with individual instances of competition, but basing the economic structure of a society on it and using it to define how people live their lives is completely different. The important thing to keep in mind when thinking about where competition is appropriate is that when you have competition, you will also have winners and losers.



Yeah, because violent economic shifts have always proved to be more productive, sustainable, and realistic than a gradual evolution.
And it has been proved that capitalist social relations will "gradually evolve" into a classless society?

The "your ideas haven't been applied successfully" argument works against revolutionaries of all stripes -- including mutualists.


There's a "law" that states one should look at the simplest answer, because more often than not, it's right.
The simplest answer being that the market system will magically morph into communism? Well, some people think Marx's idea of the socialist state withering away into communism is far-fetched -- I can't wait to see how they react to the idea that capitalism will wither away into communism. ;)

Anyway, mutualism is certainly a creative solution, but it's not a simple one. No matter how you slice it, abolishing capitalism is a complex process.


If even one split of ideology occurs (and it will - sorry to tell you), people will have a choice between "Commune A" and "Commune B."
When a working-class revolution occurs, it will be rooted in the content of people's lives, not abstract ideologies. Sectarian leftists who turn on each other due to "splits of ideology" will always be a minority. Any future revolutionary movement will make decisions on the basis of solidarity and grassroots democracy.

Of course, different areas will implement the principles of communism differently -- similar to the way bourgeois power takes different forms in different countries. But this doesn't mean that communes (for lack of a better word) can't cooperate with each other, or even that they have to compete with each other. So I'm not sure I understand how your point is relevant.


Even supposing these two sides trade, if Commune A employs energy accounting, and Commune B utilizes labor vouchers, the fact people are deciding between these two organizations is inherently mutualistic.
So... we'll all be mutualists? :)

[Durruti's Ghost]

Yeah, because violent economic shifts have always proved to be more productive, sustainable, and realistic than a gradual evolution.


By gradual evolution, do you mean a gradual evolution from a low level of socialism (say, mutualism) to a high level (say, communism), or do you mean a gradual evolution from capitalism to socialism? If it's the former, that may well be end up how it turns out; the very beginning of socialism, in which the workers at each factory have only just seized control but haven't begun to federate yet, would technically be mutualism, I suppose. If it's the latter...good luck with that.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

By gradual evolution, do you mean a gradual evolution from a low level of socialism (say, mutualism) to a high level (say, communism), or do you mean a gradual evolution from capitalism to socialism? If it's the former, that may well be end up how it turns out; the very beginning of socialism, in which the workers at each factory have only just seized control but haven't begun to federate yet, would technically be mutualism, I suppose. If it's the latter...good luck with that.

The former.