Mutualism

[analfissurs]

Don't know if there are any mutualists on these forums. If there are, I've got a question for you:

It is fine and all that the worker wouldn't be enslaved under mutualism - not being a wage slave and working for a boss. But, what about the people who can't work? The disabled? The elderly? In mutualism, would it be that you'd either work or starve? Win in the market or starve? Is this not social darwinism?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Funny that you should mention social darwinism, as the supposed founder of SD, Herbert Spencer, said this:


If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die.

but also wrote this much-ignored sentence that followed it:


Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated.

I think that mutualists probably believe things along the same kinds of lines, that feelings of solidarity and mutual aid will make sure that such people are taken care of in a "mutualist society". I'm not a mutualist, though, so I can't speak authoritatively about what they believe. Maybe you should ask Kevin Carson.

[Agnapostate]

No, I think that as market socialists, they'd have a more refined means of welfare security than that, though anarchists' opposition to government action separates mutualists from other market socialists.

[mike75]

In "Organization Theory" Carson mentions the working class societies in England. They wanted to extend the voluntary healthcare system to those who lived in poverty. However, under influence of capitalists (like Combine) it all got derailed into a statist healthcare system with heavy taxation and lots of regulations.

A mutualist society places emphasis on low cost of subsistence. It's the 40 year housing mortgage in the bank that makes living soo expensive today or for that matter the rent paid to the landlord. Mutualist are not against "use" of land for the purpose of public gardening (like growing your own vegetables for subsistence - almost everyone can do that until they roll over).

I have mutualist and georgist sympathies but only ignorant persons think they can have it all their way. Human nature is practical solutions. Mutualism is theory and praxis. I don't think it's unlikely humans will form associations/societies and somehow administer access to land based on some user fee to finance basic welfare.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think socialists and anarchists should quote social darwinists like Spencer.

In the Chinese context, Spencer is a right-wing ideologue, which is pretty obvious given that the Chinese theorists influenced by him all turned out to be right-wing ideologues, some of whom were responsible for surpressing Chinese communists.

I believe in comprehensive welfare for everyone, if it to some extent decreases "efficiency", then to be frank so be it, I don't think it is right for socialists to place "efficiency" before the well-being of workers. Sounds too much like state-capitalism to me.

[Zanthorus]

Shouldn't this thread be in OI?

[Hiratsuka]

Don't know if there are any mutualists on these forums. If there are, I've got a question for you:

It is fine and all that the worker wouldn't be enslaved under mutualism - not being a wage slave and working for a boss. But, what about the people who can't work? The disabled? The elderly? In mutualism, would it be that you'd either work or starve? Win in the market or starve? Is this not social darwinism?

Mutual aid societies would completely replace public welfare functions, assuming we're talking about anarchist mutualism and not extreme minarchism. Welfare would be thoroughly assimilated into each market sector as a matter of necessity. Currently a lot of state regulation and taxation models reduce the number of charities.

My father is mentally ill to the point of being unable to work. I understand your concerns, but I think extensive welfare is perfectly feasible.

[Svoboda]

Don't know if there are any mutualists on these forums. If there are, I've got a question for you:

It is fine and all that the worker wouldn't be enslaved under mutualism - not being a wage slave and working for a boss. But, what about the people who can't work? The disabled? The elderly? In mutualism, would it be that you'd either work or starve? Win in the market or starve? Is this not social darwinism?
I'm a market socialist, I wouldn't quiet fully call myself a Mutualist, although I am strongly influenced by Proudhon. For me there could be a couple solutions to your problem.

The best solution I see being in the function of the actual companies the worker is employed in, where the workers could mutually come to an agreement upon a system of social security, so when the workers become too old or if they become disabled for any reason the company would be able to compensate them, and the company could even create a form of universal health care for all the members of the company. All of those are examples of what the employees could do as there really could be no limit to what they could do.

Another solution I see being a highly decentralized government of voluntary association existing which could seek to alleviate the problems you stated and others. But I am uncertain about any presence of state but I must admit I cannot fully see a society existing without some sort of association between the people that would resemble government.

The final possible solution I must admit is the weakest but I don't think its entirely horrible. It is one simply of charity(or in the case of old age relying on saving or children or perhaps even a market solution), where one would have to solely hope on the benevolence of the people. I know people say that we have charity now and it dosen't really work but you've got to remember that around a fourth of people's income(more for the rich, less for the poor) goes to taxes, due to that the people are a bit more tentative about where to put their money.

[Dean]

Funny that you should mention social darwinism, as the supposed founder of SD, Herbert Spencer, said this:



but also wrote this much-ignored sentence that followed it:



I think that mutualists probably believe things along the same kinds of lines, that feelings of solidarity and mutual aid will make sure that such people are taken care of in a "mutualist society". I'm not a mutualist, though, so I can't speak authoritatively about what they believe. Maybe you should ask Kevin Carson.

The problem is, he said "it is best they should die." He merely acknowledges that sympathy could curb this phenomenon, and if sympathy is there, it should work out.

The problem is that there is no compulsion for that sympathy in his theory. He could easily have said "human beings are sympathetic creatures and would voluntarily help each other; if they don't, then there are social problems which must be resolved" or something similar. The point is, there is no sympathy in his moral system as represented above. Since morality is little more than the aggregation of value sets, I consider this to be pretty damning.

[nuisance]

Shouldn't this thread be in OI?
No.