Mutualism question...

[Unclebananahead]

Can somebody please explain mutualism to me in simple, straightforward terms, and why it's restricted? Is it just some kind of re-working of the capitalist private property system? Thanks. (and before you ask, yes, I already read the Wikipedia page on it)

[Misanthrope]

It's restricted? News to me. Mutualism is "market socialism". Theoretically, there are no capitalists, they're replaced with worker collectives but there is still currency and all other characteristics of a market, including wage slavery.

[Tablo]

Yeah and the banking system is all run democratically too. It isn't that bad, but it isn't desirable when compared to communism. Makes me sad they are restricted.

[Misanthrope]

Yeah and the banking system is all run democratically too. It isn't that bad, but it isn't desirable when compared to communism. Makes me sad they are restricted.

Do you seethe possibility of mutualism being a transitional period between capitalism and communism?

[Tablo]

Not really. I don't see why that kind of transition would be necessary.

[GPDP]

Not really. I don't see why that kind of transition would be necessary.

Personally, I think such a transitory stage might be necessary as long as scarcity remains a problem. Once scarcity is eliminated, we can move to a genuine gift economy.

That's not to say Mutualism is a desirable alternative for a transition, however. I am most partial to the idea of labor notes or energy accounting myself.

[Tablo]

Well, I prefer a labor voucher based collectivist economy rather than mutualism since it has the efficiency of being planned along with rationing. Mutualism still has all the baggage of a market economy, despite the democratic functions it introduces. It would probably work for transition though.

[Agapi]

Mutualism is an anarchist praxis that looks to eliminate what it sees as institutional parasitism: the practice of capitalism (renting capital), landlordism, ursury, involuntary taxation, and other forms of contractual coercion. It derides property which is ultimately held through state power as theft, and names workers in common association as the rightful owners of the means of production, be it machinery or land. Mutualists propose the construction of counter-institutions poised against the tyranny of the state, particularly federated industrial unions and mutual banks, as the best strategy towards progress.

I believe it has a modern utility and that many of the common criticisms against it, such as Kropotkin's disageement with Mutualism's advocation of labor notes, fall rather flat. Currency is essentially a decentralized abstraction of value. I think the way value is exploited under the capitalist mode of production leads many communists to reify currency into wage slavery in itself.

Hope this helps, or at least sparks discussion.


Well, I prefer a labor voucher based collectivist economy rather than mutualism since it has the efficiency of being planned along with rationing.

There is nothing in Mutualism that precludes economic planning. Indeed, there is nothing under even capitalism that precludes economic planning. The notion that capitalism inherently includes a market is a falsification probably brought into leftist discourse by the fact that the two biggest propaganda systems in the world once agreed upon it.

[Kiev Communard]

What is then the position of modern mutualists on the question of political organization and the participation in political struggles in general? Do they demand the immediate abolition of state as such and do they shun the political activities in general, or do they hold the positions distinct from those of Proudhon?

[Agapi]

The immediate abolition of a coercive state without the proper institutions of free association ready to replace it is a fantasy, and "political activity" is a necessity for anybody who feels earnest empathy for oppressed people. You can't just sit on your ass and preach about the better days to come after we're all dead. To that end, I don't think sectarianism in the Western left is very fruitful, so long as we're all actually participating.

[Unclebananahead]

So mutualism proposes to replace the current system of private ownership of the means of production by individuals and groups of non-producers, with a series of private, profit driven worker cooperatives? Is that correct? If so, I assume that these cooperatives would compete amongst one another, yes? And the profits enjoyed by the cooperative members would depend upon the performance of the cooperative in the market?

If the foregoing is true, it sounds as though mutualism is a capitalism in which workers are all more or less 'shareholders' in the enterprises they work for.

[Unclebananahead]

I mean like organizing all productive enterprises requiring multiple persons and division of labor into cooperatives (alà 'Alvarado Street Bakery' as depicted in the Michael Moore film, 'Capitalism: A Love Story')

[Agapi]

So mutualism proposes to replace the current system of private ownership of the means of production by individuals and groups of non-producers, with a series of private, profit driven worker cooperatives? Is that correct? If so, I assume that these cooperatives would compete amongst one another, yes? And the profits enjoyed by the cooperative members would depend upon the performance of the cooperative in the market?

Not really. The profit motive is a result of workers being exploited for their value. Without that factor present, workers could choose to enjoy their surplus rather than having to spend it on expansion continuously. I believe this leads to a predisposition towards cooperative federations rather than competitive ones.

Modern cooperatives are still operating under the rules of capitalism, and need to compete to survive. This is what drives them into profit-seeking behavior. Not, say, "greed".

[Unclebananahead]

So, your contention is that mutualism would, if implemented, establish a series of cooperative cooperatives? Haha! But if one of these privately owned cooperatives produced something that became obsolete, or weren't able to offer goods and services at a price low enough on the market to perform at a level comparable to other privately owned worker cooperatives selling similar goods/services, wouldn't that tend to severely undermine that group's livelihood?

[28350]

IIRC mutualism doesn't seek to abolish commodity production.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Mutualism: system propagated in Europe by Proudhon and in America by Josiah Warren (Benjamin Tucker was another more famous proponent of Proudhon's economic ideas, but to the best of my knowledge didn't do any theorizing of his own related to mutualism). It advocated a system of mutual banks and an adjusted market. Mutualism didn't have much influence in Europe (although Proudhon was fairly influential in certain sectors), but it had a modest influence in the United States, during a time when schemes about planning society were popular (as evident by utopian societies and such). American mutualists were engaged in various causes such as free love promotion, women's rights, anti-homophobia and labor issues...the American individualist movement in general was heavily influenced by the Civil War and the abolition movement.

Honestly I don't see much point in studying it much. It doesn't have much relevance in today's world except as a historical curiousity related to anarchism. If you're interested in knowing more, though, I'd look here (http://www.mutualist.org/) or here (http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/). The second in particular is a good resource of Proudhon's writings by an individual who's been involved in translating a lot of his hithero untranslated writings.

[Unclebananahead]

IIRC mutualism doesn't seek to abolish commodity production.

Right, as in they want a series of private, worker owned and managed cooperatives which produce things with the intention of selling them. Unlike production in a socialist society, in which things would be collectively produced purely for use-value, not exchange, correct? In my own head, I'm going to refer to this strain of thought as "Alvarado-Street-Bakery-ism," because that's what it brings to mind. Maybe I'm watching a little too much Michael Moore, LOL.

So, am I correct in assuming that this tendency is restricted (if it's truly indeed restricted that is -- I could be mistaken, in which case I would prefer some clarification), because it advocates the preservation of the private ownership of the means of production, just under more equitable terms for workers?

In response to the poster claiming that mutualism is just an anachronism studied for academic purposes with no real relevance to modern society, I can't help but imagine this sort of thinking becoming a current in certain social democratic circles. I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case. I can already imagine a discussion with a social democrat in which I'm told something like: 'why do you Marxists feel the need to institute such drastic changes? We don't need to replace capitalism, we just need to modify it by having workers own and manage the individual businesses' What I'm doing here in this thread, is trying to understand that viewpoint, and figure out the best response to it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In response to the poster claiming that mutualism is just an anachronism studied for academic purposes with no real relevance to modern society, I can't help but imagine this sort of thinking becoming a current in certain social democratic circles. I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case. I can already imagine a discussion with a social democrat in which I'm told something like: 'why do you Marxists feel the need to institute such drastic changes? We don't need to replace capitalism, we just need to modify it by having workers own and manage the individual businesses' What I'm doing here in this thread, is trying to understand that viewpoint, and figure out the best response to it.

Haha, it's funny you should mention that...



[Silvio] Gesell's chiefwork is written in cool and scientific terms, although it is run through by a more passionate and charged devotion to social justice than many think fit for a scholar. I believe that the future will learn more from Gesell’s than from Marx’s spirit.

[Unclebananahead]

Within the politics of capitalism, I tend to think of factions as either being more 'ego' (calm, rational, focused on long term goals,willingness to negotiate, willingness to compromise) or more 'id' (all out, rapacious, 'no holds barred,' short term profit come Hell or highwater). Social democracy comes as ideologically close to an 'ego' orientation within the politics of capitalism as possible I think. Not certain how scientific that is, but for me it's an amusing way to look at things. Those closer to the 'ego side' have some vague impression of the contradictory elements of capitalism, and work out schemes to prevent it from doing itself in.

They want some reforms to keep working people from becoming so alienated, downtrodden, desperate, and miserable that they see no alternative but revolutionary struggle. The 'id' types on the other hand, want a total free-for-all, sink or swim, big fish eats little fish, "you want a friend? Buy a dog," social darwinistic capitalist economy in which it's 'every man for himself' and capital sucks the very marrow out of the bones of the proletariat in the name of profit.

The ego types have some impression that this will cause a more rapid destruction of the capitalist system they hold so dear to their hearts, such that they endeavor to put a few mitigating reforms in place, at least in the nations which are the centers of capitalist power (USA, Canada, Europe) to keep capitalism from devouring itself.

[Agapi]

So, your contention is that mutualism would, if implemented, establish a series of cooperative cooperatives? Haha! But if one of these privately owned cooperatives produced something that became obsolete, or weren't able to offer goods and services at a price low enough on the market to perform at a level comparable to other privately owned worker cooperatives selling similar goods/services, wouldn't that tend to severely undermine that group's livelihood?

Yes. But there probably aren't any forces pushing the two groups to produce competitively against one another as there are between two similar firms under capitalism.

You keep using the term "private", as in private property, as in the property relations forming the theoretical and legal foundations of capitalist states. Mutualism does not advocate for this.


IIRC mutualism doesn't seek to abolish commodity production.

Why on earth would it? Or do you mean something else?

[28350]

Why on earth would it? Or do you mean something else?

Commodity production isn't just "making things." It has a very specific meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_commodity_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_%28Marxism%29

The "lower phase of communism" roughly corresponds with the elimination of commodity production.