Why isn't Mutualism/Individualism restricted?

[Jack]

I don't know if this should go in OI learning exactly, buuuutt...

Market "anarchism" doesn't advocate a revolutionary ideology. It pits workers in competition with eachother. It upholds private property. It denies class struggle (or tries to substitute it with a bullshit "class theory"). It supports gang rule by "defence associations". It isn't applicable to the average urban worker ("homesteading" and other things to open businesses, which is impossible without startup capital anyways). It permits and encourages enviromental destruction, and it is overall a petit-bourgeois ideology.

[Muzk]

If it's as you said, it sure as hell should be.

...you are a reactionary?

[Jack]

Apparently I'm "transphobic" for not thinking being transsexual is natural.

[Nwoye]

more sectarianism. look, mutualists oppose capitalism and the state, and they believe a revolution should fix it. How does that not make them a revolutionary leftist?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Market "anarchism" doesn't advocate a revolutionary ideology.

Yes it does.

It pits workers in competition with eachother.

True, which is why I am not a mutualist. Unlike Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, I have no faith in the market.

It upholds private property.

False. It upholds possession, which is not private property no matter how capitalists try to spin it since it is worker ownership of capital by definition.

It denies class struggle (or tries to substitute it with a bullshit "class theory").

It sounds like you're talking more about agorism than mutualism.

It supports gang rule by "defence associations".

Only in its Tuckerite form. I'm not sure where Proudhon, the founder of mutualism, stood on "defense associations"--I don't think he ever mentioned them. However, I agree that Tuckerite mutualism is on the very fringe of what can be considered genuine anarchism, if it is indeed anarchism at all.

It isn't applicable to the average urban worker ("homesteading" and other things to open businesses, which is impossible without startup capital anyways).

It upholds possession. If you possess capital, you have the right to "own" it. Meaning, since the workers in a factory are the ones who possess said factory, they have the right to take it over.

Also, it does NOT support homesteading. Ever. Neither Proudhon nor Tucker nor Warren supported homesteading.

It permits and encourages enviromental destruction, and it is overall a petit-bourgeois ideology.

This is debatable. However, I think that most mutualists would see environmental destruction as a negative externality for which communities would have a right to demand compensation from its perpetrators.

[Havet]

Yes it does.

True, which is why I am not a mutualist. Unlike Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, I have no faith in the market.

False. It upholds possession, which is not private property no matter how capitalists try to spin it since it is worker ownership of capital by definition.

It sounds like you're talking more about agorism than mutualism.

Only in its Tuckerite form. I'm not sure where Proudhon, the founder of mutualism, stood on "defense associations"--I don't think he ever mentioned them. However, I agree that Tuckerite mutualism is on the very fringe of what can be considered genuine anarchism, if it is indeed anarchism at all.

It upholds possession. If you possess capital, you have the right to "own" it. Meaning, since the workers in a factory are the ones who possess said factory, they have the right to take it over.

Also, it does NOT support homesteading. Ever. Neither Proudhon nor Tucker nor Warren supported homesteading.

This is debatable. However, I think that most mutualists would see environmental destruction as a negative externality for which communities would have a right to demand compensation from its perpetrators.

Nice reply, although I really was under the impression you were a mutualist (last two posts I saw from you were defending mutualism, or sharing information about it). What are you then?

Seems like many revlefters have a personal dislike of mutualism, mainly because of misinformation. Since I am not the best skilled person at arguing, I would like you Durruti and Sedrox (unless you're not a mutualist again) to help clean the bad propaganda mutualism has gained.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Nice reply, although I really was under the impression you were a mutualist (last two posts I saw from you were defending mutualism, or sharing information about it). What are you then?

I am something of mix between Bakuninism, Kropotkinism, and anarcho-syndicalism. I think that the revolution will consist of workers directly seizing the means of production and defending it from the State (anarcho-syndicalism), after which I believe the best method of productive organization will be one in which each worker must fulfill a certain labor requirement in order to remain a part of the collective (anarcho-collectivism-communism?) However, as time passes, I do hope to establish true communism, in which work is not "required" so much as it is chosen and everything is distributed "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I spend so much time defending mutualism because most people know nothing about it and thus dismiss it out of hand as capitalistic. I don't like seeing an important part of the historical anarchist tradition slandered.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm also a big time anarcha-feminist. I see the State, capitalism, and patriarchy as the three most important forms of domination (although I oppose the other forms as well, of course) that basically cannot be destroyed independently. If one of the three is left standing after the revolution, I think there is an enormous risk that it will end up reconstituting the other two.

[Smash DEM BMP]

Never heard it before.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

more sectarianism. look, mutualists oppose capitalism and the state, and they believe a revolution should fix it. How does that not make them a revolutionary leftist?

So do primitivsts, but they're still reactionary rightists. I don't really see how mutualists aren't reactionary.

[Havet]

So do primitivsts, but they're still reactionary rightists. I don't really see how mutualists aren't reactionary.

I would really reccomend you reading this, it explains your doubts much better than I could ever (includes several quotes from well known writters such as marx, proudhon, etc)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I would really reccomend you reading this, it explains your doubts much better than I could ever (includes several quotes from well known writters such as marx, proudhon, etc)

What does that have to do with it being reactionary or not? So it's anti-capitalist, big deal. So are primitivists, but they're still restricted. I'm sure national anarchists would be as well. Should we allow them?

[Pogue]

Apparently I'm "transphobic" for not thinking being transsexual is natural.

I think a large part of it is that your a total and utter failure at being a nice person, but yeh, the bigotry fits snuggly in there too.

[Durruti's Ghost]

What does that have to do with it being reactionary or not? So it's anti-capitalist, big deal. So are primitivists, but they're still restricted. I'm sure national anarchists would be as well. Should we allow them?

National anarchism is racist and patriarchal, while primitivism requires the death of a majority of the human population. Neither of these reasons applies to mutualism, though. Why do you believe mutualism is reactionary?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

[FONT=Arial]There's been about two or three separate threads trying to restrict mutualists thus far. If the vestiges of the anarchist topic remain, you can probably read up on why most RevLeft users decided to keep it an nonrestrictive.

[/FONT]

It pits workers in competition with eachother.

[FONT=Arial]As does communism via voting.

[/FONT]

It denies class struggle

[FONT=Arial]If by class struggle you mean the foolish notion there's going to be a Russia-esque Civil War in every nation on Earth within the next decade that will sweep aside all institutional problems, yeah, pretty much. I'm actually reading threads where self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" are discussing ways to rename geographical areas. Seriously? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]

[trivas7]

National anarchism is racist and patriarchal, while primitivism requires the death of a majority of the human population. [...]

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement does primitivists one better and calls for the eventual voluntary extinction of the human species (I think I've found my political niche! ).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The continuiation of industrial capitalism requires the death of a majority of the human population.

That must be why there are 6.5 billion people and counting, right?

We have a better chance of saving more lives if we stop wasting energy on unnecessary luxuries,

Such as? Who gets decide what is an "unnecessary luxury" and what is not?

if we stop pumping chemicals into the eco-system,

We could certainly clean up our act, but pollution and environmental damage is an inevitable side-effect of human activity - even hunter-gatherers did a number on the ecosystem in their own small way. The only reason it's become an issue in recent times is because of high populations.

[eyedrop]

We have a better chance of saving more lives if we stop wasting energy on unnecessary luxuries.

I don't see how you can ever except a substantial amount of the population to think that they are getting too much luxuries.

I certainly think I'm getting way too little luxuries for way too much work.

[Demogorgon]

I am very glad that mutualists are not restricted. While no mutualist myself, I recognise that the mutualists amongst us tend to be of a pretty high caliber and come up with far more interesting suggestions than many members (renaming geographical areas being a case in point).

Besides, there is little point in trying to dismiss any position outright. A lot of people here fantasise that revolution will come not merely when the majority of workers become anti-capitalist, but when the majority become part of their own narrow leftist sect! I can assure you, that will never happen. Any revolution will be made up of a broad coalition of anti-capitalist forces (and I don't doubt more than a few die switching opportunists). The nature of any subsequent society is therefore going to have to be a compromise between the visions of different groups and mutualists, as anti-capitalists will be bringing suggestions to the table.

How much of each groups vision goes into a future "constitution" to name it conveniently, will depend on their individual strength and ability to win people over. You might as well accept mutualists as anti-capitalists and focus on trying to present a constructive critique of them for a better alternative to capitalism because they WILL be part of the fight against capitalism and they WILL have worthwhile ideas they will push after it is gone.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But, as critics of anarcho-primitivism correctly point out, traditional, pre-modern methods of agriculture cannot support a human population of 6.5 billion people with the resources of an Earth-sized planet.

My point, however, is that in most ways, pre-modern/traditional agricultural modes were actually more efficient than the industrial mode of production...for example, poly-crop and keyhole agriculture is more efficient than monocrop, straight-row agriculture. Similarly, as I said before, chemical pesticides and fertilizers actually decrease fertility in the long term, for many reasons. Same with machine tilling, or any kind of tilling - and other automated agricultural devices are only more efficient if you ignore what must be done to produce them, and to produce the fuel needed to power them.

That would depend on the fuel, wouldn't it? Obviously coal and other fossil fuels are inherently unsustainable, but they aren't the only available energy sources. Nuclear fuels and renewables have the potential to last for billions of years, and a proper recycling industry (as opposed to how recycling happens currently, which is too sporadic and piecemeal for economies of scale to take effect) will reduce the amount of mining needed. Among other things, getting rid of stuff like planned obsolescence, crappily-made goods, and other criminally wasteful practices will also serve to reduce our environmental impact as a civilisation.

The reason less efficient modes of production are adopted in industrial capitalism is because, while less efficient, they are more practical and convenient to impliment within the confines of a capitalist system. Once capitalism is abolished, in my mind, these modes of production can be abandoned. There may be a population crisis either way, but there's no reason to use more ecologically draining, more wasteful methods of production if the potential for mass-die-offs is your primary concern....

I think the dichotomy between mass monoculture and small-scale non-industrial farming is a false one. There's no reason why more sustainable practices cannot be applied on the large scale.

"Luxury" was the wrong word, for the reasons eyedrop pointed out.

What I'm saying is, someone used to an urban lifestyle may find the idea of having to put work into canning food, getting water from a well, chopping wood for fuel, recycling human manure for agricultural fertilizer,and so on, to be an unpleasant addition of extra work compared to the modern conveniences such as refridgerators, toilets, gas stoves, central heating, indoor plumbing, etc.

However, if you look at the broader picture, the production of refridgerators, both in our capitalist reality, and in some theoretically non-capitalist industrial society, (which I maintain is impossible) requires many to labor for hours daily in factories - significantly much more labor than it takes to prepare food for storage using traditional methods. (not to mention quality of labor)

I think you severely underestimate the degree of automation that industry now has - indeed, while modern factories could run 24/7 with minimal human supervision, they don't because it wouldn't be profitable. However, a post-capitalist society could reduce its environmental impact and increase the quality of life for more people if it had fewer factories that ran for longer.

Another thing to consider is the role of profit in favouring paying some poor scrub $1 a day to make widgets instead of investing in more "expensive" machinery to do it automatically.

Similarly, while using human manure for soil fertility may seem like unpleasant toil, it's the more responsible option compared to wasting agricultural fertility by dumping human feces in the ocean, which kills fish and all other oceanic animal and plant life, disrupitng the eco-system, further endangering the human food supply, further broadening the possibilitiy of mass die-offs, which critics of anarcho-primitivism are rightfully concerned about.

Indeed, which is why I advocate collecting sewage and using it as a source of fertiliser, methane and other chemicals rather than whatever wasteful and pollutive practices are used today. But it would be much easier to do that if we re-engineered our current sewage systems (or even replaced them entirely) instead of going back to night soil men.

We can extend this criticism to even less "essential" products of modern society, such as mass-entertainment/mass-communication and mass-transportation, air conditioning, etc. It's fair to say that music and stories are a necessity, and games are a necessity, but games that bombard and over-stimulate every sense are not,

What's your definition of "over-stimulation" and why should your standard apply to everyone?

nor are musical performances recorded to sound exactly the same during every listen, removing the vital spontaniety inherent to the performing arts.

But using consistent recordings can be an artform in itself - indeed, if I had the money and the time, I would take up mixing and DJing.

If the oil harvesting needed for production of plastic, the mining of heavy-metals, the global mass-distribution of commodities, and so on, all of which gives us elecronic entertainment, is all inherently ecologically degrading, how can we insist that video games and CDs/mp3 players are a necessity when people managed to amuse themselves with board/card games, sports, live music, story-telling, etc. for thousands of years?

Because we can reduce their ecological impact. For example, distributing media via the internet would be far more efficient than distributing physical CDs and DVDs. It could even be possible to reduce the impact of the physical structure of the internet itself, by replacing copper cables and fibre optics with satellite uplinks and wi-fi, which will save energy and resources that would have otherwise been used to dig up the ground and lay down cable. Books can be distributed in electronic formats, to be read on book-sized, durable readers designed for easy recycling, for those who don't fancy sitting in front of a computer screen. Instead of using energy and resources to produce many boxes of different boardgames, one could instead have a multi-purpose digital device that can fit on a coffee table and store hundreds of games within its hard drive. Sports equipment could be made of carbon fibre (carbon being one of the most common elements on Earth), which would be lighter, stronger, and wouldn't require chopping down trees as opposed to wooden equipment. Etch-a-Sketch type thingies and graphics tablets could replace wasteful chalk and chemical magic markers. Digital cameras allow one to take hundreds of images and compactly store them as opposed to bulky and polluting chemical-based photography.

And most of that is stuff that's been developed under capitalism - who knows what human ingenuity could come up with, once it has been freed from the yoke of capital?

There are many products of modern culture I enjoy, and I remain optimistic that we can archive the cultural achievements of the modern era while still behaving ecologically responsibly. But the notion of extending a bourgeois or petit-bourgeois level of material comfort to the entire human race (which you have pointed out is 6.5. million folks and rising) seems a little deluded and overly optimistic to me. There may not be enough soil, wood, etc. to feed and warm us all without the added resource drain of modern luxury.

Of course, it would be impossible to provide everyone with a mansion and a private motor vehicle. But through a combination of more equitable resource distribution and ruthless efficiency through the application of scientific and engineering principles unfettered by the bureaucrats of capital and miserly bean-counters, I reckon it would be possible to lift the vast majority of the human species out of its current misery and into a lifestyle more fitting for a civilisation that truly deserves the name. Such an uplift would serve as the necessary springboard for a much-needed reduction in world population - as the demographics of many well-of nations demonstrates, people who are healthy, educated, and well-provided for feel less of a need to breed, and indeed some "rich" countries have a negative birthrate.

Toil, sickness, danger, etc. are all inevitable parts of the human experience, as well, yet we should still go out of our way to reduce their frequency.

Which abandoning industry will not achieve. It's not like things where much better for the vast majority of the human populace before such things came along.

I interpret the evidence that's available to us differently. For example, your analysis fails to analyze; why did the populations increase so drastically? What changed so dramatically in terms of how people lived? Humans, like all species, take from the eco-system, but we're also capable of replenishing. There's moe to the ecological crisis than overpopulation, although that is a problem. There is also the matter of people's lifestyles. An impoverished worker does not cause as much ecological degredation, on a personal level, as a yuppie. There's a reason for this.

Hmm, how can I put this? I'm hardly living the yuppie lifestyle - I live in a 2-room flat, don't own a car and have access to public transport, and I don't exactly have a lot of cash to splash around - yet I feel that despite being relatively poor, my standard of living would represent a significant step up for a lot of the world's population, yes?

Now, if we could improve the standard of living for those worse off than me so that they were at least at my standard of living, and equalised those living a significant step above myself in terms of lifestyle, would that not be possible for the world's population, also taking into account different needs (For example, disabled people would have priority for ground-floor dwellings, cancer patients would get their medication and so on and so forth)?

I don't have the figures (but I would sure love to have them!), but I'm betting that we curbed the excess and waste currently ongoing within capitalism that it would be possible. Indeed, this report seems to indicate that a "post-scarcity" society is possible for large parts of the world. In case the links don't work, I've attached the PDF to this post.