Anarcho-Mutualist Parties ??

[jinx92]

So, I'm unable to find any on other realms of the internet, nor have I heard about any. Is anyone aware of such a party? Thanks in advance.

[∞]

Enjoy your restriction.

[∞]

And why would there be an anarchist "party"? Unless its an actual mutualist non-political, party, which would seem kind of dull.

[jinx92]

Enjoy your restriction.

Ah yess, the stalinist tendencies of revleft come out once more...

[jinx92]

And why would there be an anarchist "party"? Unless its an actual mutualist non-political, party, which would seem kind of dull.

would you be happier if i used the term "association" or something akin? you get my point.

[∞]

Ah yess, the stalinist tendencies of revleft come out once more...

Hey man I'm not a stalinist, if I had it my way I'd unrestrict mutualists. I'm just telling you that Mutualists get restricted here.

[∞]

would you be happier if i used the term "association" or something akin? you get my point.

It'd make no sense.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ah yess, the stalinist tendencies of revleft come out once more...We're like Stalin, except on the internet.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think there's such thing as a "mutualist party".

Unless you're talking about an occassion where everyone gets drunk and talks about how much Proudhon is awesome. I don't know, that may happen.

[Liberi]

United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives?

[Bronco]

Why do Mutualists get restricted? They are anti-Capitalist leftists after all

[hatzel]

Why do Mutualists get restricted?

It is my understanding that they don't, considering at least one openly mutualist user has been happily posting on this forum for over a year without any 'repercussions', if we're going to clad restriction in such terms...

[Manic Impressive]

who's a mutualist?

[Tim Cornelis]

Alliance of the libertarian "left"?

[Thirsty Crow]

Why do Mutualists get restricted? They are anti-Capitalist leftists after all
No, they do not put forward the objective of abolishing capital as a social relation. Mutualists are reformists.

[StoneFrog]

If they don't get restricted they should. They support the market and private property, and don't support a revolution.

[Zanthorus]

The British Conservative Party seem pretty keen on decentralisation, localism and co-operativism. Also the Liberal Democrats (Actually on a serious note, there is a blog I found somewhere in the deep dark depths of the internet run by an Individualist Anarchist who is also a member of the Liberal Democrats and continues to support the party). And the Green party. Unfortunately you're in America, so that probably won't be of much use to you, although it is always interesting to observe that decentralisation, localism, co-operativism etc are all fairly common ideologies in political groupings which most people on here would have no problem referring to as capitalist, yet for some reason when it comes to 'Mutualism' a sizeable part of this board's Anarchist population turn a blind eye and start yammering on about 'hierarchy'. Hopefully you will have time to contemplate that fact during your stay on the Opposing Ideologies board.

[Bronco]

The British Conservative Party seem pretty keen on decentralisation, localism and co-operativism. Also the Liberal Democrats (Actually on a serious note, there is a blog I found somewhere in the deep dark depths of the internet run by an Individualist Anarchist who is also a member of the Liberal Democrats and continues to support the party). And the Green party. Unfortunately you're in America, so that probably won't be of much use to you, although it is always interesting to observe that decentralisation, localism, co-operativism etc are all fairly common ideologies in political groupings which most people on here would have no problem referring to as capitalist, yet for some reason when it comes to 'Mutualism' a sizeable part of this board's Anarchist population turn a blind eye and start yammering on about 'hierarchy'. Hopefully you will have time to contemplate that fact during your stay on the Opposing Ideologies board.

Yet I wonder how many Conservatives would promote the Labour Theory of Value, a stateless society where each person owns their means of production, workers co-ops and market Socialism whilst strongly criticising Capitalism..

It seems crazy to me that on "a community open to all leftists" Mutualists would be restricted

[hatzel]

Yeah, Zanthorus, you're generally a'ight, but if we're suggesting that "decentralisation, localism and co-operativism" is something we're supposed to oppose then I really don't get it. Last time I checked, the Tories aren't capitalists because they support "decentralisation, localism and co-operativism," but because they support capitalism, and there's not really any correlation between the two. Though I may have misunderstood what you were saying, it just seemed a bit "well, these people support this, so if you support this, you must be like them!" which would not only tar at least all the anarcho-commies, as well as a good few other ideologies, but is an incredibly lazy argument...not that I necessarily see mutualism as remotely workable, but that's not because they support "decentralisation, localism and co-operativism," but for wholly different reasons...

[ZeroNowhere]

Yet I wonder how many Conservatives would promote the Labour Theory of Value
All of them.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yet I wonder how many Conservatives would promote the Labour Theory of Value, a stateless society where each person owns their means of production, workers co-ops and market Socialism whilst strongly criticising Capitalism..

Communists generally do not uphold a vision of a petty shareholder society. For good reasons. Let's just say that such kind of a society is a capitalist society, prone to the crisis tendencies inherent to capital, and also to structural inequalities arising from production for exchange. As far as I know, mutualists do not advocate this kind of social organization as a model of transition towards socialism/communism. Therefore, I cannot but conclude that they're reformists. Just as much old school social democrats are reformists, aiming at correcting some of the social manifestrations of the rule of capital. And I don't think that all mutualists advocate a stateless society.

Plus, there's the fact that "market socialism" is contradiction in terms. At least for anyone who would not want to mistify both the real content and nature of capitalism and socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

If they don't get restricted they should. They support the market and private property, and don't support a revolution.

Not really. Mutualists advocate the abolition of private property to be replaced with possession (which is common ownership). It's a form of market socialism.

The problem is many of the individualist anarchists have obscured their own definitions and used "private property" to refer to possession or the fruits of the workers labour. But they do not advocate private property of the means of production.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

market Socialism

http://www.myfacewhen.com/images/64.png

[AntifaArnhem]

In Germany you've got the APPD (Anarchist Pogo Partei Deutschland) they where quite big in the region of Hannover.

[NewSocialist]

So, I'm unable to find any on other realms of the internet, nor have I heard about any. Is anyone aware of such a party? Thanks in advance.

Haven't you noticed? Close to 90% of RevLeft considers mutualism (and market socialism in general) to be just another form of capitalism. Forget the fact that there would be no actual capitalists (i.e., individuals who own the means of production and hire wage slaves) - no, the fact there's a market at all proves it's capitalism! Workers collectively controlling individual firms which compete on a market are merely "exploiting themselves" (to use a famous Marxist description of mutualism).

Even the anarchists on here despise mutualism. Proudhon was the first anarchist, sure, but his anarchism was just "petit-bourgeois socialism." And how dare you ask for a "party"?! That also proves you're just a capitalist! CNT/FAI aren't political parties, they're political organizations or trade unions, huge difference :laugh:

Ask most members here what they want to replace capitalism with and, aside from a few vague references to economic planning, they'll just invoke Marx's old line about how "recipes for the cook shops of the future" are utopian. How they expect proletarians to risk their lives in revolution for something which cannot even be envisioned is beyond me.. But what do I know? I should just wait for the usual members to quote long passages to me from the sacred texts of Marx and Engels, that will undoubtedly sort both you and I out on this matter.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actually last I heard mutualists were not restricted. There was a big referendum on this matter at one point in the CC, which concluded with the decision that they wouldn't be restricted.

[Kiev Communard]

Haven't you noticed? Close to 90% of RevLeft considers mutualism (and market socialism in general) to be just another form of capitalism. Forget the fact that there would be no actual capitalists (i.e., individuals who own the means of production and hire wage slaves) - no, the fact there's a market at all proves it's capitalism! Workers collectively controlling individual firms which compete on a market are merely "exploiting themselves" (to use a famous Marxist description of mutualism).

Even the anarchists on here despise mutualism. Proudhon was the first anarchist, sure, but his anarchism was just "petit-bourgeois socialism." And how dare you ask for a "party"?! That also proves you're just a capitalist! CNT/FAI aren't political parties, they're political organizations or trade unions, huge difference :laugh:

Ask most members here what they want to replace capitalism with and, aside from a few vague references to economic planning, they'll just invoke Marx's old line about how "recipes for the cook shops of the future" are utopian. How they expect proletarians to risk their lives in revolution for something which cannot even be envisioned is beyond me.. But what do I know? I should just wait for the usual members to quote long passages to me from the sacred texts of Marx and Engels, that will undoubtedly sort both you and I out on this matter.

I would say that mutualism is definitely a socialist ideology, yet it suffers from the similar weaknesses as Marxism-Leninism and other types of state socialism, i.e. the idealization of certain set of social relations that actually contribute to exploitation and social dislocation (the State for Marxists-Leninists and the free market for mutualists). Therefore it is actually inconsistent socialism. However, in short-term perspective it is undeniable that any libertarian socialist revolution is bound to go through a "mutualist" stage, due to impossibility of immediate transitioning to full-scale communism.

In fact, Makhno's Free Territory could be viewed as mutualist in its socioeconomic makeup, as Makhnovists had neither time nor resources to establish proper collectivist/communist syndicalist and communal system. Instead, they had to maintain an alliance between smallholding peasants and urban working class through the system of labour credits and cooperative markets similar to "agro-industrial federation" envisaged by Proudhon. Likewise, the 1921 Kronstadt rebels voiced broadly mutualist agenda in their programmatic declarations. Nevertheless, in more developed regions (for instance, Catalonia in 1936-1937), the transition to collectivist system was possible, so that mutualist stage could be easily skipped there.

As for Marx's disagreements with Proudhon, it should be noted that the former still ended up agreeing with Proudhonist model of "democratic and social republic", as demonstrated by Marx's favorable account of basically Proudhonist Commune of Paris's political structure, so that their differences should not be exaggerated too much. The same goes for Bakunin.

[ZeroNowhere]

Haven't you noticed? Close to 90% of RevLeft considers mutualism (and market socialism in general) to be just another form of capitalism. Forget the fact that there would be no actual capitalists (i.e., individuals who own the means of production and hire wage slaves) - no, the fact there's a market at all proves it's capitalism! Workers collectively controlling individual firms which compete on a market are merely "exploiting themselves" (to use a famous Marxist description of mutualism).

[...]



Ask most members here what they want to replace capitalism with and, aside from a few vague references to economic planning, they'll just invoke Marx's old line about how "recipes for the cook shops of the future" are utopian. How they expect proletarians to risk their lives in revolution for something which cannot even be envisioned is beyond me.. But what do I know? I should just wait for the usual members to quote long passages to me from the sacred texts of Marx and Engels, that will undoubtedly sort both you and I out on this matter.I love how you act as if we have never debated this subject at all, and then accuse us of faulty argumentative technique when your entire post basically consisted in reproducing old talking points as if they were trump cards which we couldn't answer due to their obviousness.

[NewSocialist]

I love how you act as if we have never debated this subject at all, and then accuse us of faulty argumentative technique when your entire post basically consisted in reproducing old talking points as if they were trump cards which we couldn't answer due to their obviousness.

I'm obviously speaking on behalf of my own experiences on this forum, and on several occasions I've read plenty of people dismiss both mutualism and market socialism as being mere "worker capitalism" (and other such absurdities).

Can you actually answer how an economy consisting of no capitalists really be considered capitalism? You can certainly claim it isn't what Marx or Engels considered 'socialism' to be, you can accuse it of still featuring "commodity fetishism," say that the market is fundamentally exploitative, etc. But no one can rightly accuse it of being "capitalism." To casually equate the market with capitalism is to suggest that capitalism has existed throughout most of human history.

[Thirsty Crow]

To casually equate the market with capitalism is to suggest that capitalism has existed throughout most of human history.
This is completely wrong.

The point is, capitalism is characterized by production of exchange values, or in other words, in capitalism most of the productive capacities are employed in order to produce items with a sole purpose of selling in the market.
This is the dominant, hegemonic production form, whereas one cannot say that the same is true for other socio-economic formations in human history.


Can you actually answer how an economy consisting of no capitalists really be considered capitalism

What do mutualists think of potential economic competition in "market socialism"? As far as I know, they uphold the competitive free market. If they mostly do, isn't it right to conclude that it is still accumlation of capital that drives human behaviour when it comes to the production and reproduction of our material existence? Also, it seems to me that this cannot be negated with a simple assertion that indivuduals would not be able to claim ownership over a productive facility.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'm obviously speaking on behalf of my own experiences on this forum, and on several occasions I've read plenty of people dismiss both mutualism and market socialism as being mere "worker capitalism" (and other such absurdities).

Can you actually answer how an economy consisting of no capitalists really be considered capitalism? You can certainly claim it isn't what Marx or Engels considered 'socialism' to be, you can accuse it of still featuring "commodity fetishism," say that the market is fundamentally exploitative, etc. But no one can rightly accuse it of being "capitalism." To casually equate the market with capitalism is to suggest that capitalism has existed throughout most of human history.

Now its just clear you just have an astounding talent to misrepresent what other people actually meant and replace them with a few strawman arguments of your own creation which you have now assumed they must be making.

Nobody is saying the "market" is fundamentally exploitative (going here, on the broadest definition of "the market" possible) or anything else you have said, but that despite property being shared, mutualism still has the same mechanism of operation as traditional capitalism does.

To put this as simply as possible, you can have a soccer tournament in which the teams are equally skilled, and have an even chance of winning, or one where there are great disparities in skill and therefore each team's chances of success - but despite all this its still a soccer match.

I think the same goes for mutalism. You can have differences in the distribution of profit across society, be it more equal or less equal, and you have have differences in the ability of people to succeed or flourish or get what they see as a good, fair job in such a society, be they more or less equal, but not alter the fundamental economic mechanism of such a society. Only by taking a superficial view, or by correlating what must surely be a moral element onto the economic concepts of profit, or exploitation, or capitalism can you think that mutualism is anything other than egalitarian capitalism.

[NewSocialist]

The point is, capitalism is characterized by production of exchange values, or in other words, in capitalism most of the productive capacities are employed in order to produce items with a sole purpose of selling in the market.

Yes, production for market exchange is a characteristic of capitalism, but it doesn't define capitalism. A capitalist is an individual who owns productive assets, hires wage laborers and proceeds to extract surplus value from said wage laborers.

If I burn a CD at home with my computer and sell it to an acquaintance for $2, I'm not suddenly a capitalist, even despite having produced a commodity and selling it. Why? Because I employed no wage slave(s) in the process. I'll even refer to one of the sacred texts to justify my position:

"Property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if the essential complement to these things is missing: the wage-labourer, the other man, who is compelled to sell himself of his own free will . . . Capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons which is mediated by things."
Marx, Karl. Das Kapital vol. I, p. 932


What do mutualists think of potential economic competition in "market socialism"? As far as I know, they uphold the competitive free market.

It's my understanding that they endorse a market of sorts.


If they mostly do, isn't it right to conclude that it is still accumlation of capital that drives human behaviour when it comes to the production and reproduction of our material existence?

Correct, but it's still incorrect to label mutualism as being "capitalist" for the reasons I already discussed.

[NewSocialist]

Nobody is saying the "market" is fundamentally exploitative (going here, on the broadest definition of "the market" possible) or anything else you have said, but that despite property being shared, mutualism still has the same mechanism of operation as traditional capitalism does.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that no one on this forum (or in the entire history of socialism in general, for that matter) has made the claim that the market is fundamentally exploitative? Moreover, I was simply listing criticisms which could rightly be leveled against mutualism and contrasting them with the unfair criticism of mutualism that's commonly employed (i.e., that it's just another form of capitalism).

[Jose Gracchus]

Haven't you noticed? Close to 90% of RevLeft considers mutualism (and market socialism in general) to be just another form of capitalism. Forget the fact that there would be no actual capitalists (i.e., individuals who own the means of production and hire wage slaves) - no, the fact there's a market at all proves it's capitalism! Workers collectively controlling individual firms which compete on a market are merely "exploiting themselves" (to use a famous Marxist description of mutualism).

Even the anarchists on here despise mutualism. Proudhon was the first anarchist, sure, but his anarchism was just "petit-bourgeois socialism." And how dare you ask for a "party"?! That also proves you're just a capitalist! CNT/FAI aren't political parties, they're political organizations or trade unions, huge difference :laugh:

Ask most members here what they want to replace capitalism with and, aside from a few vague references to economic planning, they'll just invoke Marx's old line about how "recipes for the cook shops of the future" are utopian. How they expect proletarians to risk their lives in revolution for something which cannot even be envisioned is beyond me.. But what do I know? I should just wait for the usual members to quote long passages to me from the sacred texts of Marx and Engels, that will undoubtedly sort both you and I out on this matter.

Perhaps you'd observe all the Marxian critiques of mutualism are presaged in many studies, including those of Paul Cockshott, the factual exploitation of workers by the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, and the cooperative market socialism of Titoist Yugoslavia. Maybe you respect evidence, but then again maybe you don't.

To support your claims, we'd have to throw out all of historical materialism, look at the Soviet economy as some kind of progressive 'advance' beyond capitalism (that is somehow not socialism). We basically have to throw out any coherent concept of class analysis and the analysis of generalized commodity production entirely. We're back to utopian or ethical socialism, backed by liberal-empiricist and ethical arguments for whatever form you purport it should take.

[Thirsty Crow]

Sorry, don't have much time right now, but I'd only point this out:


It's my understanding that they endorse a market of sorts
By that, I think your impying that any kind of a market inherently leads to (some) form of competition. I'm not sure what do mutualists think about competition, and do they perceive the need to limit it, but let's assume that they endorse the competitive market.

And that's the whole point. "Market socialism" cannot be constituted globally as a separate mode of production, IMO, because of the very tangible tendencies towards capitalist restoration/restructuring (depending on one's view on the possibility of capital accumulation under "socialism"), on one hand, and towards the abolition of the market and an implementation of a mechanism of social and economic planning, i.e. global communism.

I don't know if I'm being clear enough. Sleep deprivation is a nasty thing.

[NewSocialist]

the factual exploitation of workers by the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation

I presume you're referring to the hiring of wage laborers in some of the Mondragon cooperatives? Yes, that's certainly exploitation and it's been steadily increasing over the years (due in no small part to Spain lifting its trade tariffs). When you're a cooperative federation having to compete in a market dominated by ruthless multinational, capitalist corporations, it's difficult to survive at all and sometimes you have to resort to abandoning your cooperative ethics to varying degrees just to stay in business. This is why most market socialists favor the outright abolition of the wage-for-labor-time contract (thereby effectively outlawing wage labor).


and the cooperative market socialism of Titoist YugoslaviaMarket socialism in Yugoslavia worked relatively well for a while. It was ultimately the ethnic strife in Yugoslavia, coupled with the uneven development of the country that the state presided over, that destroyed Yugoslavia (to say nothing of the foreign debt the government accumulated over time).

I know that Michael Albert accuses Yugoslavia (and the entire notion of market socialism in general) of having been dominated by a "coordinator class," and there's some validity to this critique. The workplace democracy in many firms that would exist in market socialism would fall more along the lines of representative democracy, as opposed to the more direct/participatory democracy that could exist under systems like Parecon. Nevertheless, even Michael Albert wouldn't accuse market socialism or mutualism of being a form of capitalism.


Maybe you respect evidence, but then again maybe you don't.

I consider myself something of an empiricist.


To support your claims, we'd have to throw out all of historical materialismExplain.


look at the Soviet economy as some kind of progressive 'advance' beyond capitalism (that is somehow not socialism).Not every form economic system that isn't capitalism is a positive advancement beyond it.


We basically have to throw out any coherent concept of class analysis and the analysis of generalized commodity production entirely.How does an understanding of class dynamics somehow vindicate economic planning over market socialism? Furthermore, do you seriously believe that the working-class today will engage in mass revolutionary activity without having a fairly specific conception of what they're fighting to achieve?

[Jose Gracchus]

Two quick remarks, because I am on my way out:

Kiev: I think you'd be interested in some of the parts of the Anarchist FAQ where its discussed how the collectivized industries and farming communities in Catalonia were considered by the anarchists to be immediately at the disposal of a broadly "mutualist" constitution of economic order, but with the eye to moving very quickly to a "collectivist" system, and as the revolution's expansion would allow, moving as quickly as possible to a communist system.

New Socialist: I recommend reading Zanthorus' writings on vulgar cooperative conceptions of "self-management", as well as Michael Albert's criticism of Schweickart's Economic Democracy. Further, I recommend Paul Cockshott's writings on the aforementioned Schweickart material, as well as the fact that Titoist Yugoslavia produced the largest unemployments in the Eastern Bloc. The surplus population had to be exported for typical capitalist "guest worker" programs.

Furthermore, it proved the truism that when all products become commodities (when all production is for exchange) than all labor must become commodities as well. Generalized commodity production is the heart of capitalism. I suggest you actually read Capital before coming in here and treating us like the schoolmaster come to discipline his pupils.

Also, with all these idyllic worker-owned firms, how will capital be invested amongst them? How will workers not remain subject to labor markets. Its clear in both cases that the seeds of the reformation of an overt capitalist class, whether it be pushed toward the coordinator-state bureaucratic end of the spectrum or the Western conventional model.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I know a mutualist who is into a bunch of that lao tzu taoist type stuff. he only cares about anti-statism and goes on to call it a parasite and a disease and a mental disorder. (talk about idiotic). (note, being anti-state is fine, ultimately i am against the institution of the state anyways and im not bagging on our resident anarchists. just this guy)

the thing is though, is he doesnt criticize it from a left perspective or a class perspective. he also says he is for business and total-voluntaryism.


in the magical land of mutualism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A lot of the mutualist-types in the USA were p. cool. They were land/labor reformers who were very interlinked with the abolitionist movement and the sexual liberation movement of the time. Always had a soft spot for those utopian socialists.

[∞]

I believe mutualism would be more viable if it integrated Marxist class analysis to its framework. In it's essence it isn't terrible, it is just too gung-ho about bourgeois concepts of voluntarism and property.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I believe mutualism would be more viable if it integrated Marxist class analysis to its framework. In it's essence it isn't terrible, it is just too gung-ho about bourgeois concepts of voluntarism and property.
its the worst form of utopianism. if it had any semblance of class orientation or even critiques of capitalism from a utopian (or scientific) perspective would make it tolerable.

[NewSocialist]

New Socialist: I recommend reading Zanthorus' writings on vulgar cooperative conceptions of "self-management", as well as Michael Albert's criticism of Schweickart's Economic Democracy. Further, I recommend Paul Cockshott's writings on the aforementioned Schweickart material, as well as the fact that Titoist Yugoslavia produced the largest unemployments in the Eastern Bloc. The surplus population had to be exported for typical capitalist "guest worker" programs.

I've already read, and appreciate, Albert's critique of market socialism (as I indicated in my previous post)—I've also read and appreciated Schweickart's critique of participatory planning—and I'll be sure to read Cockshott's critique of Schweickart's conception of market socialism (which, I know, provides a role for "entrepreneurial capitalists," which is clearly dangerous, unnecessary, and absurd).

I've not said Yugoslavia's form of market socialism should be emulated—the nation clearly had issues insofar as its economy, the state, and ethnic turmoil were concerned. Still, at least in Yugoslavia workers played some role in the production process, whereas in the Soviet Union they were merely passive spectators.


Furthermore, it proved the truism that when all products become commodities (when all production is for exchange) than all labor must become commodities as well. Generalized commodity production is the heart of capitalism.

Again, commodity production is a feature of capitalism but not its distinguishing characteristic. Wage labor is. As for the status of labor being a commodity, the alleged commodity character of labor under market socialism (again) still allows for much more in the way of self-management than historic centralized economic planning ever did.


I suggest you actually read Capital before coming in here and treating us like the schoolmaster come to discipline his pupils.

Funny.. You accusing someone of being condescending.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/206636171_0021c26a2e.jpg


Also, with all these idyllic worker-owned firms, how will capital be invested amongst them?

It depends on the specific form of market socialism in question. A lot of contemporary market socialists favor democratic control of investment funds - Schweickart has written extensively on this.


How will workers not remain subject to labor markets.

So long as wage-for-labor-time contract is outlawed and firms operate on the basis of one person/one vote, I fail to see where the problem is. Workers would democratically allocate the surplus value of their labor.


Its clear in both cases that the seeds of the reformation of an overt capitalist class, whether it be pushed toward the coordinator-state bureaucratic end of the spectrum or the Western conventional model.


Well, centralized economic planning has thus far reverted back to capitalism basically everywhere it has been attempted. There's no telling whether or not participatory planning or Cockshott's cybernetic planning would be immune from such a possibility either. Frankly, I think every alternative to capitalism contains such a possibility—it all depends on how well the alternative performs (insofar as maximizing human happiness is concerned) relative to capitalism.

As for a coordinator class representing an "overt capitalist class," I disagree that it could be considered such. Coordinators may form into an unsavory elite, that people would ultimately prefer not having, but that doesn't render those coodinators to be "capitalists."

[Agapi]

I believe mutualism would be more viable if it integrated Marxist class analysis to its framework. In it's essence it isn't terrible, it is just too gung-ho about bourgeois concepts of voluntarism and property.

Nothing about mutualist thought is incompatible with Marxist class analysis.


So long as wage-for-labor-time contract is outlawed and firms operate on the basis of one person/one vote, I fail to see where the problem is. Workers would democratically allocate the surplus value of their labor.

Cooperatives today are still subject to market forces, as I'm sure you know, and have to manage themselves in accordance with the ebb and flow of capital. Any socialist philsophy advocating for a market (not that I really do such a thing, I view markets as an element that exists within the totality of human social interaction) needs to correct for this fact. I believe total worker ownership of the means of production would necessarily make this kind of competition an aberration, since money for expansion ultimately comes from worker surpluses.

[The Idler]

To the OP, check out Kevin Carson's Mutualist (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/) and C4SS (http://c4ss.org/) then investigate from there.

[Zanthorus]

With respect to the discussion on whether or not mutualism constitutes a form of capitalism (And other theoretical points which have been brought up on the subject of mutualist ideology) I would like to note that it is off topic from the original post and would encourage users to continue the debate in the thread here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mutualism-form-capitalismi-t156607/index.html?p=2148311

(Consider this also something of a self-chastisement and apology for involving myself in the topic with my first post in this thread)