Where will the mutualist be doing the revolution?

[Prinskaj]

Where will the mutualist be doing the revolution?
Inb4 gulags!

[hatzel]

...ah...I dunno...market square? :confused:

Or, if we're going to take Émile Armand as the representative of mutualism: on the nudist beaches!

But seriously what are you even asking here?

[Railyon]

Market square would also have been my answer... or their workshops if we take it old school petty bourgeois style with the craftsmanship...

[Lanky Wanker]

Why would we put them in gulags? From what I understand about mutualism they're not exactly our economic/political enemies, and I doubt they'd cause much trouble considering how outnumbered they are.

[Ostrinski]

I think there's too damn few of them for it to matter.

[Railyon]

Why would we put them in gulags?

Just for the sake of it... considering the fetish for concentration camps some users on RevLeft have, unsurprisingly.

[Lanky Wanker]

Just for the sake of it... considering the fetish for concentration camps some users on RevLeft have, unsurprisingly.

I think we just have a thing for making the opposition suffer, including opposition on this site.

Anarchists: BURN THEM ALIVE!!! MMM MOLOTOV COCKTAIL MUAHAHAHA!

Stalinists: Gulag. Now.

[Blanquist]

What is a 'mutualist'? My dictionary says "interdependent: mutually dependent"

:confused:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What is a 'mutualist'? My dictionary says "interdependent: mutually dependent"

:confused:

A type of "market socialism", as we might call it for simplicity's sake.

[hatzel]

I think there's too damn few of them for it to matter.

Perhaps this is why the question is 'where will the mutualist' - in the singular - 'be?' Which gives us a new answer...

In Kevin Carson's house!

[Mr. Natural]

Perhaps many comrades are so opposed to mutualism because it offends the hyper sectarianism of the left.

Can some comrade provide a review of mutualism and Kevin Carson's version of it? Yes, I know there is Marx's Poverty of Philosophy, and perhaps that same comrade can supply a thumbnail sketch of this work, too.

I know little of mutualism, but what I know says it should not be dismissed out of hand. It seems mutualism offers lots of fertile grassroots organizing ideas, and might also provide some of the actual forms an anarchist/communist economy would take.

My red-green, let's get mutually educated best.

[Blanquist]

They should build an island for all enemies of socialism, and then let them live there in peace, unless they continue to threaten socialism, and then gulags maybe.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Come the revolution they (like all people) will have to pick a side. When they pick a side, then we will know where each individual stands, and how they should be dealt with

[NewLeft]

I think mutualism isn't any preferable to capitalism. It still lies on the commodification of labour, no?

[Railyon]

Come the revolution they (like all people) will have to pick a side. When they pick a side, then we will know where each individual stands, and how they should be dealt with

A bit simplistic, innit.

Also KRONSTADT

[honest john's firing squad]

Where will the mutualist be doing the revolution?
hopefully in a ditch by the roadside

that is where they found my estranged ukrainian grandpappy dead drunk, trufax

[Caj]

Mutualists still exist?

[hatzel]

Also KRONSTADT


They should build an island for all enemies of socialism, and then let them live there in peace, unless they continue to threaten socialism, and then gulags maybe.

I think the juxtaposition of these two quotes gives rise to an opportunity for humour...

[Misanthrope]

Yay more unnecessary leftist in fighting! :rolleyes:

Mutualists are anti-capitalist and some even see mutualism as a potential transitional stage into communism. There is no real mutualist movement nor knowledge of the theory's existence so there really is no need to have a position hypothetically.

[Railyon]

Mutualists still exist?

As far as I know they're mostly busy with trying to refute communist arguments against mutualism. Or some petty fighting with right-libertarians about who is the real one.

[honest john's firing squad]

As far as I know they're mostly busy with trying to refute communist arguments against mutualism. Or some petty fighting with right-libertarians about who is the real one.
only on the internet though

[∞]

Probably at home vlogging and listening to prog-metal.

[hatzel]

I happen to think that mutualism has evolved into parecon, which fills the niche once filled by mutualism. It seems. Parecon-types strike me as the kind to call for mutualism in the '30's...

[Railyon]

I happen to think that mutualism has evolved into parecon, which fills the niche once filled by mutualism. It seems. Parecon-types strike me as the kind to call for mutualism in the '30's...

Now that you mention it. Maybe?

I'm under the impression mutualists are mainly based in the US though, and have undergone some unholy mutation to "left-libertarians". Libertarians in the bad kinda way.

[hatzel]

INWO-types have some vague connection with mutualism, what with Gesell's thing for Proudhon, but it certainly feels like it no longer has any currency on this side of the Atlantic...I've never met a mutualist, that's for sure...which makes me wonder what this thread's actually for...

[Lanky Wanker]

I think mutualism isn't any preferable to capitalism. It still lies on the commodification of labour, no?

Haven't you heard of Proudhon's Property is Theft? I thought he was a commie until he started talking about earning according to work hours. Apparently he also supported the idea of being able to borrow money without paying interest which I don't actually remember reading. Don't try being all badass with your "lolz i dnt want it if itz not communism!! tha lesser evil is for pussies ahaha!!!" shit, son.

[Railyon]

Haven't you heard of Proudhon's Property is Theft? I thought he was a commie until he started talking about earning according to work hours. Apparently he also supported the idea of being able to borrow money without paying interest which I don't actually remember reading. Don't try being all badass with your "lolz i dnt want it if itz not communism!! tha lesser evil is for pussies ahaha!!!" shit, son.

Well think of it as you may, but in my opinion mutualism has simply ceased to be relevant because of changing material conditions. Back when Proudhon lived, artisans and craftsmanship were much more common, but that's no longer valid today. For much of the world's population, especially in the "first world", owning land and living off your property and commodities in the mutualist sense is not even possible.

So I think the question of a lesser evil flies right out the window, and I think it is only the "libertarians" that fail to see past the 18th century.

[Lanky Wanker]

Well think of it as you may, but in my opinion mutualism has simply ceased to be relevant because of changing material conditions. Back when Proudhon lived, artisans and craftsmanship were much more common, but that's no longer valid today. For much of the world's population, especially in the "first world", owning land and living off your property and commodities in the mutualist sense is not even possible.

So I think the question of a lesser evil flies right out the window, and I think it is only the "libertarians" that fail to see past the 18th century.

That's what I thought of it at that level, but I thought the idea of assigning people property to work with wouldn't just be "here's your workshop, now start making shoes". It must include common ownership of factories or something when put into a modern context.

[NewLeft]

Haven't you heard of Proudhon's Property is Theft? I thought he was a commie until he started talking about earning according to work hours. Apparently he also supported the idea of being able to borrow money without paying interest which I don't actually remember reading. Don't try being all badass with your "lolz i dnt want it if itz not communism!! tha lesser evil is for pussies ahaha!!!" shit, son.
That's not the point.. It would lead to the restoration of capitalism.

[Prinskaj]

I should perhaps have been a bit clearer in my initial question..
I was referring to the fact that some poster here on revleft has given the opinion that mutualism is a capitalist ideology, given the method of exchange and other factors.
So my question should have been:"Will the mutualist be part of the revolution? And if yes, which side would they be?".

[Railyon]

I consider mutualism to be a petit bourgeois ideology, so just as with the p. bourg. I'd say... who knows? No real way to tell. Could be either way.

If we talk about the US mutation of mutualism, "left libertarianism" though, they will most likely be on the opposite side of the trenches...

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Fight along side the Capitalist in the hope they'll receive labor notes :laugh:.

[hatzel]

So my question should have been:"Will the mutualist be part of the revolution? And if yes, which side would they be?".

Well if history and/or common sense have taught us anything, it's that any attempt to split individuals into two distinct categories, 'progressive' and 'reactionary' - problematic enough in a 'non-revolutionary' (excuse my laughable misuse of the term) situation - will prove itself to have been a pointless and unenlightening exercise if and when this 'revolution' you speak of takes place, what with people very rarely behaving in a predictable manner and events very rarely playing out in the manner assumed by those making predictions about how people will/should behave in such a situation...