Somebody explain Mutualism/Agorists [Archive]

Zanthorus

13th May 2010, 17:00

Agorism is actually pretty hazy and not necessarily well defined.

For the most Agorism seems to refer to a form of "revolutionary" (And here I use that word in the loosest possible sense) market anarchism that advocates the use of black markets to counteract the state. According to Agorist theory there are three kinds of market:

White Markets - All actions by private actors which are legally approved by the state or actions taken by the state itself.
Red Markets - Aggressive action against person or property not approved by the state (e.g theft and murder).
Black Markets - Non-aggressive action which is not legally approved by the state (e.g drug dealing)
Agorists think that the black market can be expanded to the point where people can live solely off of the of the counter-economy and the state will become bankrupt because it's revenue stream (taxation) will be cut off. The state can then be liquidated and it's assets privatised.

Agorists even have their own agorist class theory. According to them there are basically two classes - The political/governing classes and the subject/governed classes. The former includes anyone who makes their income from "non-productive" activity (defined by agorists as activity involving aggression against peronsaly property. Into this category would go most state officials and members of the bourgoisie who gain advantages from the state) and the latter includes anyone who makes their income from "productive" activity (defined as anyone who makes their income in a way not requiring "coercion").

Really agorism is more of a tactic and a class theory than a holistic political theory. There are agorists who could be called anarcho-capitalists and agorists who could be called mutualists. The reason they would be restricted on this board is probably because even though they oppose state privileges for capitalists they also end up opposing a hell of a lot of workers who have jobs in the public sector. Anyone with such a warped theory of class cannot possibly be a "leftist". Similarly, it's not exactly a "revolutionary" ideology in the sense most here would use it. In fact a great deal of them are pacifists.

Mutualism comes in essentially two forms - The european form popularised by Proudhon and influential to a certain extent in the french section of the first international and the american form which also took on influences from Josiah Warren and Max Stirner and was much more propertarian (Tucker said that it was legitimate for women to throw their babies into the fire since they were rightfully her property to dispose of as she wished).

Mutualism in europe died out and gave way to the partially Marxist inspired theories of Bakunin's collectivist anarchism. In america it was a major tendency within the anarchist movement at first, however waves of immigrants from europe brought communist anarchism to the shores of america. Although there were initially a few spats (Tucker and Most fought it out on the property question) the general rule was co-operation. However eventually the europeanised collectivist anarchism phased out the individualists.

Mutualism is sometimes termed "free-market anti-capitalism" and the general theory is that without the state and privileges given to capitalists by it the market would naturally tend towards co-operatives and workers control. This is why it fits in quite well with an agorist perspective on revolution. However it's "anti-capitalist" credentials are seriously questionable. It seems to me that mutualism would merely push the capitalists into the background as rentiers and financial capitalists and integrate the workers almost completely into capital forcing them to manage their own exploitation and alienation. I imagine this is the reason why they are restricted.

Mutualism has nothing to do with agorism.

Only if you take the Mutualist claim to be "free-market socialists" at face value. Many of them explicitly value the market first and add in "socialism" as an afterthought. The two (EDIT: Agorism and mutualism obviously. Not the market and socialism :p ) generally fuse together quite nicely.

Die Neue Zeit

14th May 2010, 03:51

A former poster on this board, the mutualist Gene Costa, valued "socialism" first and "the market" second. Probably he's an exception to the rule?

Agnapostate

14th May 2010, 05:11

Any legitimate advocacy of free market exchange will require socialism as an aim, on account of the market power that characterizes the largely oligopolistic capitalist economy. Many of our so-called "anarcho"-capitalists, if they had a grain of consistency, would be mutualists/individualists. I don't know if the restriction policy applies solely to mutualists or to market socialists more generally, but I'm also opposed to it.

JacobVardy

14th May 2010, 06:41

Most of the Mutualists i've chatted with having been strongly opposed to any form of property that can not be 'homesteaded'. That is if its property that you can use, control and maintain its yours. Otherwise it must be shared with those who also use, control and maintain it. So a small business, like a farm or a surgery, that can be owner operated, perhaps with season casual workers, would be protected. Anything else must be co-ops or commons.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

14th May 2010, 07:10

There are several mutualist posters that aren't restricted, so I'm not sure how that policy is enacted in the first place.

Argument

14th May 2010, 13:04

Agorists even have their own agorist class theory. According to them there are basically two classes - The political/governing classes and the subject/governed classes. The former includes anyone who makes their income from "non-productive" activity (defined by agorists as activity involving aggression against peronsaly property. Into this category would go most state officials and members of the bourgoisie who gain advantages from the state) and the latter includes anyone who makes their income from "productive" activity (defined as anyone who makes their income in a way not requiring "coercion").Would capitalists be part of the ruling classes? If so, I don't really see the problem with their class theory. It seems quite simplistic, but isn't it true?

The reason they would be restricted on this board is probably because even though they oppose state privileges for capitalists they also end up opposing a hell of a lot of workers who have jobs in the public sector.I don't think they're opposed to the workers as much as they're opposed to the public sector.

(Tucker said that it was legitimate for women to throw their babies into the fire since they were rightfully her property to dispose of as she wished).Most mutualists, at least those I have spoken to, disagree with Tucker on this issue. Children should have some rights, I wouldn't call them property.

Mutualism is sometimes termed "free-market anti-capitalism" and the general theory is that without the state and privileges given to capitalists by it the market would naturally tend towards co-operatives and workers control.That sounds about right, yes.

It seems to me that mutualism would merely push the capitalists into the background as rentiers and financial capitalists and integrate the workers almost completely into capital forcing them to manage their own exploitation and alienation.How'd you figure? You don't think Mutual Banks would be successful in a mutualistic society? How would capitalists get other people to work for them without them having the ability to own land they don't use?

Only if you take the Mutualist claim to be "free-market socialists" at face value. Many of them explicitly value the market first and add in "socialism" as an afterthought.I don't. I'd say that I'm primary an anarchist, secondary a libertarian socialist and tertiary a free-market supporter.

A former poster on this board, the mutualist Gene Costa, valued "socialism" first and "the market" second. Probably he's an exception to the rule?I don't think he is, most mutualists seem to stress the socialist part more than the free-market part.

Many of our so-called "anarcho"-capitalists, if they had a grain of consistency, would be mutualists/individualists. I don't know if the restriction policy applies solely to mutualists or to market socialists more generally, but I'm also opposed to it.Yes. From my experience, anarcho-capitalism seems to be a temporary stage for many people. They are anarcho-capitalists for awhile before they convert to agorism or mutualism.

Most of the Mutualists i've chatted with having been strongly opposed to any form of property that can not be 'homesteaded'. That is if its property that you can use, control and maintain its yours. Otherwise it must be shared with those who also use, control and maintain it. So a small business, like a farm or a surgery, that can be owner operated, perhaps with season casual workers, would be protected. Anything else must be co-ops or commons.Property, at least land property, is based on possession. Occupancy and use. If you start a farm, and you then hire workers to work for you, and you thus are able to use a larger area than you would be able to use yourself, the workers have the right to demand that they get to use the rest of the land, perhaps for a worker's cooperative. If you don't want to be part of this cooperative, you could demand that you take as much land that you personally can use, and let them have the rest.

This is true also for factories. If you were to create a large factory and hire several worker's to work for you, you would use more land than you yourself are able to. The worker's would thus be the possessors of large portions of the land. They're now possessing the land. You could either move the factory or leave it on their land. If you leave it on their land (or parts of it), then it's theirs. You can only keep as much as you can personally use. Thus, it would be next to impossible to exploit the workers under mutualism.

Zanthorus

14th May 2010, 15:52

A former poster on this board, the mutualist Gene Costa, valued "socialism" first and "the market" second. Probably he's an exception to the rule?

Well I was sort of painting in broad brush strokes in my first post based on my experiences arguing with mutualists. There are probably a lot of mutualists who put "socialism" first and "markets" second however I have more experience arguing with the libertarian natural rights crackpots who also add on as a "secondary value" which is subordinate to the general ideal of "non-aggression" and can only be achieved within the scope of the former.

Most of the Mutualists i've chatted with having been strongly opposed to any form of property that can not be 'homesteaded'. That is if its property that you can use, control and maintain its yours. Otherwise it must be shared with those who also use, control and maintain it.

Er, that's not what homesteading means. Homesteading is a theory of legitimate property rights developed by John Locke which says that property is morally legitimate and inviolable as long as it is based on the right of first use. That is, whoever uses a piece of land gets it first. To this is sometimes added the "Lockean Proviso" which stipulates you must leave "enough and is good" resources for other people. However many modern Lockeans drop the proviso altogether.

Would capitalists be part of the ruling classes? If so, I don't really see the problem with their class theory. It seems quite simplistic, but isn't it true?

I would argue that it's an inverted picture of reality. The capitalist state developed long after the initial rise of the capitalist class which began in the merchant towns of 15th century Italy. It's the capitalists that create the state. Saying that it's in fact the state the creates the capitalists can only lead to all sorts of confusion. Such as the whole opposition to the struggles of public sector workers thing.

I don't think they're opposed to the workers as much as they're opposed to the public sector.

I don't see how they could consistently fight against pay cuts to public sector workers as a result spending cuts without contradicting themselves.

How would capitalists get other people to work for them without them having the ability to own land they don't use?

Why not ask the anarcho-capitalists? They could probably give you a thousand and one ways in which capitalists can defend their property with roving gangs of armed corporate thugs.

Argument

14th May 2010, 18:07

Well I was sort of painting in broad brush strokes in my first post based on my experiences arguing with mutualists. There are probably a lot of mutualists who put "socialism" first and "markets" second however I have more experience arguing with the libertarian natural rights crackpots who also add on as a "secondary value" which is subordinate to the general ideal of "non-aggression" and can only be achieved within the scope of the former.Interesting. Most mutualists I've seen seems to argue that there are no natural rights, that rights are given by the individual or by society. Also, they argue that a free market would be good because it would help the workers.

Homesteading is a theory of legitimate property rights developed by John Locke which says that property is morally legitimate and inviolable as long as it is based on the right of first use. That is, whoever uses a piece of land gets it first.More or less all mutualists are against Lockenian property right over land.

I would argue that it's an inverted picture of reality. The capitalist state developed long after the initial rise of the capitalist class which began in the merchant towns of 15th century Italy. It's the capitalists that create the state.The state existed long before that. Rome had a state, for example. The state has cooperated with the church, with the nobility, and now it cooperates with the capitalists. Without the aid of the state, the capitalism we have today wouldn't be possible.

I don't see how they could consistently fight against pay cuts to public sector workers as a result spending cuts without contradicting themselves.If we want to abolish the public sector (which we want to, since we want to abolish the state), does that mean that we should want to lower wages in the meantime? Or should we perhaps spend our focus on lowering the wages of the CEOs in the state, of the politicians and of the bureaucrats? We should, and focus on removing the privileges the state gives to the capitalists.

Why not ask the anarcho-capitalists? They could probably give you a thousand and one ways in which capitalists can defend their property with roving gangs of armed corporate thugs.Most anarcho-capitalists don't like the state monopoly capitalism we have today. They want "free-market capitalism". They don't mean the same thing as we do when they say "capitalism". Also, in an anarcho-capitalist society where they still use Lockean property right over land, the risk of capitalists rising is much higher than in a mutualist society.

Zanthorus

14th May 2010, 18:52

The state existed long before that. Rome had a state, for example. The state has cooperated with the church, with the nobility, and now it cooperates with the capitalists. Without the aid of the state, the capitalism we have today wouldn't be possible.

What a fantastically flawed analysis of history. The major institutions and organisational structures of the state under capitalism are noticeably different from the institutions and organisational structures of Feudalism. When I was talking about the state I was mostly referring to the capitalist state, sorry if I didn't make that clear. The fact remains however that the capitalist class arose in opposition to the old landed aristocracy and the Feudal state and when it took power for itself it overhauled the institutions of the old state and created a nice shiny new one for the express purpose of keeping down the proletariat.

If we want to abolish the public sector (which we want to, since we want to abolish the state),

This relies on the flawed indidividualist conception of a "state" which sees it as a monopoly aggressing against the property rights of individuals in civil society. In actual fact the capitalist state is the public power which takes on a political character and becomes an institution towering above the social body in order to regulate the worst excesses of the capitalist market system.

Our (mine at least) goal is not to abolish the notion of "public power" altogether but to reunite the public power with the social body and destory the antagonisms of civil society that gave it cause to rise above society in the first place.

Or should we perhaps spend our focus on lowering the wages of the CEOs in the state, of the politicians and of the bureaucrats?

This is very unlikely to happen within the framework of the capitalist state. The only state I know of to have enacted serious measures in the direction of bringing beuracrats to account by demolishing their wages was also coincidentally the first instance of the dictatorship of the proletariat:

The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism.

We should, and focus on removing the privileges the state gives to the capitalists.

We should focus on expropriating the capitalists through force if necessary and replacing waged-labour with associated labour.

Most anarcho-capitalists don't like the state monopoly capitalism we have today. They want "free-market capitalism". They don't mean the same thing as we do when they say "capitalism".

Try telling that to the guys over at mises.org or hell, even here on our very own opposing ideologies board.

Argument

14th May 2010, 21:15

The major institutions and organisational structures of the state under capitalism are noticeably different from the institutions and organisational structures of Feudalism.Yes, yet it's still very similar at the same time. The state was oppressive under Feudalism, and it still is. We've exchanged the rulers, but we are still being ruled. I don't predict a non-coercive state will ever be formed, in fact, that would be an oxymoron. The state is coercive, else it's not a state. Coercion tends to end badly for the individual, for the common man, for the workers. An elite is able to control the masses though force, threats of violence, coercion and manipulation. This is the way it always has been, and I predict that this is the way the state always will be.

The fact remains however that the capitalist class arose in opposition to the old landed aristocracy and the Feudal state and when it took power for itself it overhauled the institutions of the old state and created a nice shiny new one for the express purpose of keeping down the proletariat.Yes, that's quite possible. What is your point?

In actual fact the capitalist state is the public power which takes on a political character and becomes an institution towering above the social body in order to regulate the worst excesses of the capitalist market system.Are you saying that the state exist because the people wanted to regulate the market?

Our (mine at least) goal is not to abolish the notion of "public power" altogether but to reunite the public power with the social body and destory the antagonisms of civil society that gave it cause to rise above society in the first place.With "public sector", I mean what people usually mean with that, namely the sector run by the government. If you have another definition, then we probably don't talk about the same thing.

This is very unlikely to happen within the framework of the capitalist state.I agree. If we want this to happen we need to assemble the masses and have them protest against this. Boycotts, demonstrations, strikes! We need to show them that we will stand for it no more! This won't be an easy task, however.

We should focus on expropriating the capitalists through force if necessary and replacing waged-labour with associated labour.Expropriation seems like on of the last steps before going to a new society. I agree that expropriation is acceptable in some cases, although we shouldn't do it, least we prove them that we are nothing more than thieves and criminals. Taking what they have stolen from us isn't a crime, though, is it?

Try telling that to the guys over at mises.org or hell, even here on our very own opposing ideologies board.I will. It bothers me that anarcho-capitalists chose to call themselves "capitalists", since the word "capitalism" isn't a good one. Agorists tend to be more tactical than anarcho-capitalists. But I digress.

Zanthorus

14th May 2010, 21:55

Yes, yet it's still very similar at the same time. The state was oppressive under Feudalism, and it still is. We've exchanged the rulers, but we are still being ruled. I don't predict a non-coercive state will ever be formed, in fact, that would be an oxymoron. The state is coercive, else it's not a state. Coercion tends to end badly for the individual, for the common man, for the workers. An elite is able to control the masses though force, threats of violence, coercion and manipulation. This is the way it always has been, and I predict that this is the way the state always will be.

What is your point? I don't deny any of this. I just deny that the capitalist class is created by and an extension of the state. For the 3rd time - The capitalist class was a class that first appeared during 15th century Italy (to the best of my knowledge. Others here may no of instances of capitalists appearing further back in time) and didn't beging to take hold of the reigns of the state until the end of the 18th and start of the 19th centuries. When they did take hold of the reigns they remolded the state to suit their own interests and installed institutions such as representative democracy.

Yes, that's quite possible. What is your point?

The same one Marx tried to hammer home in his critique of Proudhon but aparrantely Proudon's followers still haven't got - Reducing things like the state to a priori abstractions such as "coercion" is a fundamentally unscientific method of inquiry. You see quite clearly the privileges granted to capitalists by the state but without the guide of history completely invert the relationship and claim that it is the state that creates capitalists when in actual history it was capitalists that wielded the state for their own ends.

Are you saying that the state exist because the people wanted to regulate the market?

I'm saying the state exists to resolve the antagonisms created by civil society. Regulating the unfettered market is only part of that.

With "public sector", I mean what people usually mean with that, namely the sector run by the government. If you have another definition, then we probably don't talk about the same thing.

We're talking about the same thing. However you seem to want to abolish the public power as an institution completely whereas I think the public power should be reunited with society.

I agree. If we want this to happen we need to assemble the masses and have them protest against this. Boycotts, demonstrations, strikes! We need to show them that we will stand for it no more! This won't be an easy task, however.

This is part of the task. However more fundamentally we need to organise the proletariat as the ruling class in order to expropriate the bourgeoisie and bring the other non-exploiting spheres of society under the wing of the proletariat as a prelude to the destruction of class society.

Expropriation seems like on of the last steps before going to a new society.

Expropriation is only the first step. The hard part is keeping the bourgeoisie from re-appropriating the means of production. The revolution will not occur simultaneously worldwide (Most likely in only two or three countries to begin with) and the bourgeoisie will flee to other countries in an attempt to mobilise the forces of Imperialism and crush the revolution in it's infancy.

I agree that expropriation is acceptable in some cases, although we shouldn't do it, least we prove them that we are nothing more than thieves and criminals. Taking what they have stolen from us isn't a crime, though, is it?

This is not a question of "crime" or of "stealing" it is the question of creating a society which is in accordance with the real nature of humanity. In order to do that we need to go beyond bourgeois morality. "Revolutionary leftists" (If that's what mutualists really are) should not be afraid to critique bourgeois morality and set up their own moral standards. Criticising bourgeois society from it's own moral perspective can only lead to a distorted view.

I will. It bothers me that anarcho-capitalists chose to call themselves "capitalists", since the word "capitalism" isn't a good one.

I think they mostly know what the connotations of the word capitalism are and don't really care.

BAM

14th May 2010, 22:07

The same one Marx tried to hammer home in his critique of Proudhon but aparrantely Proudon's followers still haven't got - Reducing things like the state to a priori abstractions such as "coercion" is a fundamentally unscientific method of inquiry.

Indeed, and Marx's main critique of Proudhon was that he had misunderstood the relation of supply and demand to value in market exchange.

Mutualism turns the labour theory of value from a positive theory into a normative one, but in so doing seeks to abolish capitalism merely by a more rigorous fidelity to capitalism's own principal ideals (free competition, fair exchange, etc.)

Durruti's Ghost

14th May 2010, 22:25

Mutualism turns the labour theory of value from a positive theory into a normative one, but in so doing seeks to abolish capitalism merely by a more rigorous fidelity to capitalism's own principal ideals (free competition, fair exchange, etc.)

I don't really think that's a fair assessment of mutualism. As far as I know, it rejects the property rights system that exists under capitalism and aims to replace it with a system termed "possession"--that is to say, a system where property is owned by the person/people using it. So, for example, one person could own a small farm; however, if he tried to hire someone else to work that farm along with him, mutualist property conventions would dictate that this worker become an equal partner in the farm.

BAM

14th May 2010, 22:43

I don't really think that's a fair assessment of mutualism. As far as I know, it rejects the property rights system that exists under capitalism and aims to replace it with a system termed "possession"--that is to say, a system where property is owned by the person/people using it. So, for example, one person could own a small farm; however, if he tried to hire someone else to work that farm along with him, mutualist property conventions would dictate that this worker become an equal partner in the farm.

I agree with you, insofar as that goes. Mutualism seeks the collective ownership of the means of production. In that context it is clearly different to agorism. But Proudhon wants to keep production for exchange.

However, mutualist economic theory argues that labour-time should be the measure of exchange value, as opposed to the positive labour theories of Ricardo and Marx, who say that the market-based fluctuations of supply and demand disclose value - the locus around which market prices hover. (In reality, Marx says that market prices are determined by production price.)

Proudhon's mutualism turns all this upside down. Proudhon says that value can itself determine supply and demand (that is to say, I put in, for instance, five hours of labour and receive the same in labour from the market). The danger is that this circumvents the market itself, which is the social validation mechanism of exchange. We are left with the problem of how to ascertain whether or not the work we produce is socially necessary.

Zanthorus

14th May 2010, 22:44

Durruti's Ghost

14th May 2010, 22:53

No, there is no set property rights theory that all mutualists hold to. In terms of Proudhon at least he later came to believe that his early judgements were too harsh and that "simple property" was needed in order to achieve liberty.

Interesting. Well, I know that at least some mutualists uphold the possession system I described. I'm unsure how those that don't could honestly claim that their system is socialist.

Zanthorus

14th May 2010, 23:07

I'm unsure how those that don't could honestly claim that their system is socialist.

As far as I can tell it's because they would want to see co-operatives set up in a free-market economy while refusing the use of "aggression" to achieve this goal.

Qayin

14th May 2010, 23:24

ContrarianLemming

15th May 2010, 02:06

Sounds like a stupid fucking theory to me so far.

Market fetishism, we don't need any sort of capitalist "free-market" mixing in with social anarchism. Rothbardians need to really stop mixing in with us.

Mutualism was the first anarchist school of thought, all others are based on it, Collectivism being a sexy mix of Mutualism, Liberalism and Marxism

Qayin

15th May 2010, 02:09

Im regarding left rothbardism and agroism

Agnapostate

15th May 2010, 03:20

Capitalism doesn't approximate anything near a "free market" anyway, so it would be better to poke holes in their inconsistencies than simply attack "free markets and property rights."

Proletarian Ultra

15th May 2010, 04:03

Kevin Carson's Mutualist Blog (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/) is pretty rad. I've moved pretty far beyond it myself, but it's useful how he constantly points out the state support on which capitalist accumulation depends. Pointing out that capitalism is not a free fucking market is one of the best arguments I've found in talking to people about socialism.

After a certain point, though, you have to start wondering whether a "truly free market" is an attainable or even desirable goal.

The guys he cites like Tucker and Proudhon are worthy of study. Their version of the labor theory of value is rightly criticized for being normative/moralistic. But...I'm struggling to articulate this...I think it helps to frame labor-value as a positive experience on the part of workers themselves rather than just a bunch of numbers, as it often becomes in Marxian analysis. (Does that make sense?)

But a lot of people claiming to be mutualists are just Austrian creeps gone ideological antiquing. I'm not surprised that many get banned here.

syndicat

15th May 2010, 05:36

SEK3's "left libertarianism" differed from anarchocapitalism in that it is sort of minarchist, that is, they see a role for government, for purposes of regulation, to deal with some public goods, like defense and such, I think.

However, mutualist economic theory argues that labour-time should be the measure of exchange value,

Won't be efficient. That's because labor time or effort prices will tend to overuse expensive forms lf labor. In other words, the actual benefit generated by work is not simply a function of effort or work time. It depends upon the skills, who one is working with, synergy of groups, the sophistication of the means of production, and so on. In other words, if a brain surgeon's hour of labor is priced the same as a janitorial hour of work, this will lead to excessive demand for very expensive medical skills.

An efficient price system needs to reflect actual social opportunity costs.

This is why market socialists nowadays don't say prices are to be effort or labor hour prices.

But there are still other problems with market socialism. It has the same problem of externalities to deal with that capitalism does. A worker collective that generates electric power can externalize costs onto others by burning coal, thus fouling the air or by using natural gas. Natural gas is extremely dirty at the point of extraction. Gas fields generate huge amounts of carcinogenic and otherwise unhealthy emissions. For example, San Juan County New Mexico, a poor county with 34 percent Native American population, has a well within 500 yards of every single residence. These wells generate several times the pollution of a big oil refinery.

Another problem with market socialism is that it will inevitably tend to generate an internal bureaucratic class system in the cooperative ventures. This is because there is a differentiation in the existing society in social capital that people have. Some have higher educations, have worked as marketeers or managers or engineers and have scarce skills that would be valuable to a coop. They can then use their market power to obtain higher wages and more say and other perks, and eventually will tend to consolidate power in the coop. We see this in numerous coops, like the Mondragon coops where the managers and professionals dominate the manual workers. It's really an internal class system.

So, the market works as a transmission belt of oppression. Inherited differentiations in power that people have will get translated into internal power in cooperative ventures.

For reasons like this I'm a market abolitionist.

BBKing

15th May 2010, 09:30

But there are still other problems with market socialism. It has the same problem of externalities to deal with that capitalism does. A worker collective that generates electric power can externalize costs onto others by burning coal, thus fouling the air or by using natural gas. Natural gas is extremely dirty at the point of extraction. Gas fields generate huge amounts of carcinogenic and otherwise unhealthy emissions. For example, San Juan County New Mexico, a poor county with 34 percent Native American population, has a well within 500 yards of every single residence. These wells generate several times the pollution of a big oil refinery.Externalities like pollution are only a problem if air isn't treated as possession by either the commons who rely on it or the immediate tenants, or if consequential polluting which affects the livelihood of others is overlooked. A mutualist would argue that any production facility that doesn't take active steps to diffuse these externalities will be sued by neighbors whose health or property deteriorates. The only real criticism one can raise is about pecuniary externalities which only affect prices instead of quality.

Another problem with market socialism is that it will inevitably tend to generate an internal bureaucratic class system in the cooperative ventures. This is because there is a differentiation in the existing society in social capital that people have. Some have higher educations, have worked as marketeers or managers or engineers and have scarce skills that would be valuable to a coop. They can then use their market power to obtain higher wages and more say and other perks, and eventually will tend to consolidate power in the coop. We see this in numerous coops, like the Mondragon coops where the managers and professionals dominate the manual workers. It's really an internal class system.It's also been called political capital as its timed outside of financial stamina. That said, what is so objectionable about someone who is more savvy in a certain field having more clout? Political capital would exist even in a dynamic communist or collective society. Bakunin said, after all, "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker."

A lot of non-profits already operate as quasi-mutualist projects despite the hefty amount of regulation which goes into checking their activities. [Look into how hard it is to actually define one's organization as non-profit. Talk about snuffing out mutual aid] The members, who are ordinary people, are ultimately in charge of who resides on the board and how much compensation is dulled out. There are exceptions like the Salvation Army (which is more technocratic), but you get my point.

Zanthorus

15th May 2010, 14:00

SEK3's "left libertarianism" differed from anarchocapitalism in that it is sort of minarchist, that is, they see a role for government, for purposes of regulation, to deal with some public goods, like defense and such, I think.

No, SEK3 was a market "anarchist". The difference between "right" and "left" libertarianism seems to be more on cultural values and what exactly the outcome of a free-market will be. The left-libertarians are against patriarchy, racism, homophobia and other forms of societal discrimination as oppressive and contrary to the "free" part of "free market". They also tend to view the outcome of a free-market as being a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. The right-libertarians think that all attempts to add cultural concerns into libertarianism are due to some crazy Marxoids hijacking their project. They also have no qualms about horrific inequality and a small ultra-powerful ruling class arising in a free-market. Some of them, like the Hoppeans, actively praise this as a desirable goal.

BAM

15th May 2010, 14:07

The right-libertarians think that all attempts to add cultural concerns into libertarianism are due to some crazy Marxoids hijacking their project. They also have no qualms about horrific inequality and a small ultra-powerful ruling class arising in a free-market. Some of them, like the Hoppeans, actively praise this as a desirable goal.

yeah, if you look up mutualism or agorism on Mises.dot.org most people there have little time for it. The Miseans and right-Rothbardians think agorists are all crypto-Marxists. The right wing anarcho-capitalists couldn't really care less about welfare outcomes in terms of inequalities, but they will still argue that the unhindered free market will raise living standards across the board, though more for some than others.

Agnapostate

15th May 2010, 17:20

Mutualism turns the labour theory of value from a positive theory into a normative one, but in so doing seeks to abolish capitalism merely by a more rigorous fidelity to capitalism's own principal ideals (free competition, fair exchange, etc.)

More rigorous? It does so by actual fidelity to free competition and fair exchange, which do not and have not ever characterized capitalism. It's far more satisfying to demonstrate to propertarians that their moral rules conflict with their axioms than to simply blindly attack everything.

BAM

15th May 2010, 17:53

More rigorous? It does so by actual fidelity to free competition and fair exchange, which do not and have not ever characterized capitalism. It's far more satisfying to demonstrate to propertarians that their moral rules conflict with their axioms than to simply blindly attack everything.

I agree with you entirely. The aogrists, like the libertarians, seek to establish some system that has never existed except on paper.

Their comeback, of course, is that we have never had true capitalism, only a distorted form, or even something like mercantilism. In which case, if capitalism doesn't exist, then presumably capital itself doesn't exist either.

In any case, it doesn't matter, becuase Marx's critique of capital rests exactly on the assumption that there is free and fair exchange in the marketplace, so even if the capitalist utopia of the political economists existed, we would still get class divisions, monopoly, the fall in the rate of profit, etc., etc., ...

syndicat

15th May 2010, 18:00

Externalities like pollution are only a problem if air isn't treated as possession by either the commons who rely on it or the immediate tenants, or if consequential polluting which affects the livelihood of others is overlooked. A mutualist would argue that any production facility that doesn't take active steps to diffuse these externalities will be sued by neighbors whose health or property deteriorates. The only real criticism one can raise is about pecuniary externalities which only affect prices instead of quality.

This is what the Right-libertarians say...and it's crap. The transaction and coalition costs are too great. Each person's effect from the pollutant is small so there is not so much motivation to overcome the costs of initiating and building a coalition, plus you'll have free rider problems all over the place because many people who would benefit from such a coalition will sit back and let you do the work. And that means it will not be effective.

What's required is for the environmental commons to have a collective social organization...a communal organization...that controls human access to the commons, and can exact compensation for polluting it or taking resources from it.

It's also been called political capital as its timed outside of financial stamina. That said, what is so objectionable about someone who is more savvy in a certain field having more clout? Political capital would exist even in a dynamic communist or collective society.

so you're not against the existence of a bureaucratic ruling class, just like the stalinists. and you're wrong that this inevitable. it's not.

what's required is for the worker union organization that seizes the means of production to also build an organization to re-org all the jobs, to ensure that every job has both some of the drudgery or risk involved in the production of the product, and also some of the conceptual or skilled work. And there would need to be vast changes in the educational system to go along with this, for democratization of experetise and life-long learning, hence to roughly equalize "social capital." the advocates of participatory economics call this "job balancing for empowerment effects."

BBKing

15th May 2010, 20:14

This is what the Right-libertarians say...and it's crap. The transaction and coalition costs are too great. Each person's effect from the pollutant is small so there is not so much motivation to overcome the costs of initiating and building a coalition, plus you'll have free rider problems all over the place because many people who would benefit from such a coalition will sit back and let you do the work. And that means it will not be effective.

What coalition? It only takes one person to sue.

If pollution is so negligable that its health impact is uncertain, it's a waste of resources and time to act.

What's required is for the environmental commons to have a collective social organization...a communal organization...that controls human access to the commons, and can exact compensation for polluting it or taking resources from it.

Unless you're trying to imply some guy in Japan has the right to dictate what a factory in New Jersey is spewing forth even though its environmental impact to him is less significant than a cow's fart, that's just a fancy repeat of what I said, stripped of the market lingo.

so you're not against the existence of a bureaucratic ruling class, just like the stalinists.

Whatever that means. I'm not against the idea that someone who has practiced glassblowing for thirty years is going to have more clout in an organization than someone who is learning the trade, no.

what's required is for the worker union organization that seizes the means of production to also build an organization to re-org all the jobs, to ensure that every job has both some of the drudgery or risk involved in the production of the product, and also some of the conceptual or skilled work. And there would need to be vast changes in the educational system to go along with this, for democratization of experetise and life-long learning, hence to roughly equalize "social capital." the advocates of participatory economics call this "job balancing for empowerment effects."

If job-balancing were efficient, it would dominate a mutualist market. There is nothing incompatible between the two concepts. Otherwise you're just trying to apply your social posturing unto others. Unlike ParEcon, mutualism allows for a plurality of different methodologies to be implemented.

syndicat

15th May 2010, 21:21

If job-balancing were efficient, it would dominate a mutualist market.

Class domination is a question of freedom and justice, which takes precedence over efficiency. And your assumption that markets are efficient is simply false.

What coalition? It only takes one person to sue.

It's estimated that 30,000 people die prematurely every year due to lung ailments caused or exacerbated by air pollution in California. so are you saying one person is to have the resources to sue on their own or builid a coalition....assuming they can even find...the others? That's absurd. Like I say, this is what extremist right-libertarians always say is the solution to externalities. And it's obvious bullshit.

Communal ownership of the commons means that no factory or other workplace has any "right" to emit any pollutant into the air that we all breathe. To place a requirement of someone suing, as you do, means you're assuming the same free access regime for the environment we now have.

There are situations where it might make sense for a community to allow some pollution. It may be that the benefits of the production outweigh some small amount of pollution. But the population have the right to require that they be convinced of this, and they have the right to demand payment from the workplace as compensation for the "consuming" (that is, polluting) the air. Attaching a price to the pollution helps efficiency because it gives an incentive to production organizations to reduce their pollution.

Your free access regime, on the other hand, because it gives each firm a prima facie right to pollute, encourages inefficiency. that's a key reason market systems are inefficient.