Mutualism

[Rosa Provokateur]

I've heard mutualism described as free-market anti-capitalism. Can anyone expand and explain to me what it actually is?

[Nwoye]

well for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
http://www.mutualist.org/
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/
http://all-left.net/
http://leftlibertarian.org/

Mutualism was created by Pierre Joseph Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and it stood in opposition to both statist capitalism and marxism. Proudhon was really the first anarchist, and was one of the first to adopt a much more libertarian strain of socialism.

Mutualism is essentially an individualist interpretation of socialism. It opposes outright collectivisation of production and distribution (communism) and supports (limited) private property in labor. Proudhon basically believed that workers had the right to the fruits of their own labor, and believed that this could best be achieved through worker cooperatives. He was an anarchist, so he opposed state-ownership and control of industry, and supported more decetranlized worker organizations (he identified as a federalist).

However, proudhon did not support private property in land, and coined the phrase "Property is Theft". (I can go on for hours on proudhon's view of property, and property in general, but i'll try to just give a breif summation). Proudhon basically believed that there was no difference between a despot controlling a country or a landlord controlling land. They have the same authority and powers, only on different scales. He believed in individual ownership of land, but only ownership based on possession. In his most famous work, What is Property?, he argued that property in land should be handled so that people only take what they naturally possess - he opposed absentee ownership. Basically, you own the land you live on or work on, but if you get up and move and find somewhere else to live, then you no longer have a legitimate claim to that original piece of land. He also claimed that in order for property in land to be legitimate, "it must have equality for its condition".

Now, as mutualists support those worker cooperatives, they also support markets - being anarchists, that's considered a "free" market. Kevin Carson (a modern mutualist) argues that class hierarchies (capitalism) is a direct result of government intervention, through money and land monopolies, intellectual property, subsidies, and discriminatory taxation. He believed that left to itself, a truly free market would exemplify socialist principles - ie a classless society and the liberation of labor from expoitation. To facilitate these socialist markets, mutualists support a democratically run mutual credit union, which would facilitate lending and investment into companies. It wouldn't have to charge interest, but if it did, any profit would belong to the community as a whole.

I hope that helps. Those sites listed above have some great resources, so if you're interested in learning more about mutualism, or PJ Proudhon, then check 'em out. I really like proudhon, and seeing as you're an anarchist, I don't think you could get by without researching or studying his philosophy.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Proudhon considered property to be anything that one produces from their own labor. Would that include wages earned from labor or things bought with said wages?

[Nwoye]

Proudhon considered property to be anything that one produces from their own labor. Would that include wages earned from labor or things bought with said wages?

well we didn't support wages for one, but that's kind of a semantics argument. but i would say both. however, remember that he only believed in private property based on possession, so you couldn't have absolute ownership over land or capital or the like just because you bought it.

[Che a chara]

what arguments do the rest of the left have against mutualism ?

[Weezer]

Sorta off topic, but do Mutualists get restricted?

[9K116]

what arguments do the rest of the left have against mutualism ?

How would it work when applied to large, complex projects (e.g. construction and maintanance of nuclear power plant, cosmic program or large hospital)?

[Havet]

Sorta off topic, but do Mutualists get restricted?

Sometimes. It is "currently on debate" whether they should be restricted or not. But current restricted users who became mutualists are NOT unrestricted.

[gorillafuck]

How would it work when applied to large, complex projects (e.g. construction and maintanance of nuclear power plant, cosmic program or large hospital)?

What's the concern?

[Che a chara]

How would it work when applied to large, complex projects (e.g. construction and maintanance of nuclear power plant, cosmic program or large hospital)?

What's the concern?

yeah i second this.

how do you mean 9k116 ?

[9K116]

As I understood, Mutualism foresee the labourers receive all the income from business - because there is no capitalist who parasites on that income, right? However, the income still is earned via free market - if labourer can't sell his production or service, he earns no profit.

What comes to large projects I mentioned before - the problem is they need a lot of capital invested and long period of time to be build and become profitable. So, the question is - who will pay workers building nuclear power plant within Mutualism system? The same with hospitals - health care sometimes is much more expensive than sick person (and his relatives) are able to pay. How Mutualists plan to handle issues like these?

[Agnapostate]

what arguments do the rest of the left have against mutualism ?

Anti-market sentiments. Consider, for example, the anti-market positions adopted by that side in Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists, David McNally's Against the Market, or Robin Hahnel's article The Case Against Markets (in its entirety there). Even consider Marx's original critique of Proudhon, though I believe there to be numerous flaws in it.

[Zanthorus]

what arguments do the rest of the left have against mutualism ?

Anti-market sentiments.

Basically this. There are some serious concerns over wether or not getting rid of the state and having a "tr00" free market would actually solve that many problems.

Some examples off the top of my head of the type of problems Mutualism would face:

Concerns over animal welfare. Consider for instance this recent article in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fare-standards

Clearly it's far more efficient for food manafacturers to keep the animals in the cheapest conditions possible, which usually means horrendous conditions for the animals. The standard libertarian argument is that freedom of speech and the ethical concerns of consumers will win out however it's clear that most consumers don't actually pay all that much attention to where their food comes from. I'll quote from the same article:

"If consumers know anything about it, they probably think all the standards are the same."

Another example of where the market fails would be energy provision. Consider this statement by Ofgem that there are serious concerns over wether the market system will be able to provide enough electricity in the coming years and that policies to remedy may even include a central buyer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8494899.stm
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/PressR...raft%20v15.pdf

I just can't see how a free-market system (Even an "anti-capitalist" free market system) can deal effectively with provision of resources on such a large scale. Carson even admits as much when he harps on about the decentralising effects of modern technology and how it will render the state irrelevant and how the "laissez-faire" era of capitalism included wide scale government intervention in order to provide mass transport services for goods, but he doesn't consider issues (Like provision of electrical power) where it might be necessary to have non-market based solutions.

[Havet]

Another example of where the market fails would be energy provision. Consider this statement by Ofgem that there are serious concerns over wether the market system will be able to provide enough electricity in the coming years and that policies to remedy may even include a central buyer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8494899.stm
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/PressR...raft%20v15.pdf

What exact deregulation took place?

Why did it take 20 years for the bad effects to appear?

[gorillafuck]

This is a thought I had. Keep in mind that all my knowledge of mutualism is almost exclusively derived from what I learned on wikipedia and reading hayenmills posts. Not exactly my expertise. Also, for the purpose of this thread I'm not considering mutualism/market socialism a form of socialism, even though I suppose it could be considered one.

But here's something that crossed my mind. Let's say mutualism is the economic system in place. And there's a bunch of toaster making co-ops that make toasters, and a couple self-employed toaster makers. And one co-op is just doing a lot better than the others. So they run one co-op out of business, and the former employees of the failed co-op are offered new jobs in the more successful co-op. This co-op makes more money so it can afford better materials to make better toasters, and soon it runs another co-op out of business and those employees, well toaster making is their specialty so they join this large toaster company. The large toaster company makes more money and has better resources (it can afford better materials) so the self-employed toaster makers feel, "What the hell, I'd probably do better over there anyway, and maybe I'd have to work less." So they all join the big toaster company. So pretty much everyone has joined the toaster company and all the toaster makers work in one democratically run company. Wouldn't that be a sort of mutualist transition to socialism? What are some thoughts on that scenario?

Just a thought that popped into my mind.

[Havet]

But here's something that crossed my mind. Let's say mutualism is the economic system in place. And there's a bunch of toaster making co-ops that make toasters, and a couple self-employed toaster makers. And one co-op is just doing a lot better than the others. So they run one co-op out of business, and the former employees of the failed co-op are offered new jobs in the more successful co-op. This co-op makes more money so it can afford better materials to make better toasters, and soon it runs another co-op out of business and those employees, well toaster making is their specialty so they join this large toaster company. The large toaster company makes more money and has better resources (it can afford better materials) so the self-employed toaster makers feel, "What the hell, I'd probably do better over there anyway, and maybe I'd have to work less." So they all join the big toaster company. So pretty much everyone has joined the toaster company and all the toaster makers work in one democratically run company. Wouldn't that be a sort of mutualist transition to socialism? What are some thoughts on that scenario?

I seriously doubt that a business, even if democratically run, can grow that much and wipe out competition like one breathes. Competition, diseconomies of scale and no artificial barriers of entry/exit will pretty much restrict size of business up to a certain degree. Businesses are not static. If one comes up with a better production technique, some will "die", others will mold and continue.

A good thought experiment nonetheless. Worth discussing.

[Zanthorus]

What exact deregulation took place?

Why did it take 20 years for the bad effects to appear?

I don't see how time scales are relevant to this. Some economic phenomena take a long time to surface even after the negatives have been put in place.

I'm not exactly sure of the ins and outs of the regulation either, but I can't see what piece of regulation could have caused price signals to fail so horrifically.

[ZeroNowhere]

what arguments do the rest of the left have against mutualism ?

The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step. It is known that the attempts of workers' producer cooperatives in the last century, even if they did have the merit of showing that one could do without the social person of the capitalist, were a resounding failure because they were not able to stand up to the bourgeois competition. It would be no different if the competition took place no longer between bosses' enterprises and workers' cooperatives but between as many workers' cooperatives as there were enterprises. One of two things would happen: either the workers' cooperatives would try to operate other than as capitalist enterprises and as all the other conditions would remain bourgeois (links by the intermediary of the market) they would be swept aside; or, if they intended to survive, they would only be able to operate as capitalist enterprises with a money capital, wages, profits, a depreciation fund and capital investments, credit and interest etc. The competition between them would not be abolished, so neither would the system of commercial contracts, nor civil law and the state institution needed to uphold it.

-Bordiga.

More or less the exact same criticisms as are used against other forms of capitalism, said criticisms including more or less the entirety of Capital, crises, the function of co-ops being to accumulate capital rather than produce for human need, etc.

Even consider Marx's original critique of Proudhon, though I believe there to be numerous flaws in it.

Also this, in which he attacks Proudhon for seeking to more or less defeat capitalism on the basis of its own laws, though it may not be relevant to all mutualists.

[gorillafuck]

I seriously doubt that a business, even if democratically run, can grow that much and wipe out competition like one breathes. Competition, diseconomies of scale and no artificial barriers of entry/exit will pretty much restrict size of business up to a certain degree. Businesses are not static. If one comes up with a better production technique, some will "die", others will mold and continue.

Agreed, but it theoretically could happen (though theoretically, it's a stretch). It was just some food for thought.

[RGacky3]

I seriously doubt that a business, even if democratically run, can grow that much and wipe out competition like one breathes. Competition, diseconomies of scale and no artificial barriers of entry/exit will pretty much restrict size of business up to a certain degree. Businesses are not static. If one comes up with a better production technique, some will "die", others will mold and continue.

A good thought experiment nonetheless. Worth discussing.

These are all small factors, not nearly enough to actually restrict size.