The Site's View of Mutualism

[OsirisTheMutualist]

I'm curious as to what the majority of this site thinks of mutualism. I don't know what answers to expect, so anything that I see will probably come as a surprise.

[TheIrrationalist]

irrelevant from its inception.

[OsirisTheMutualist]

irrelevant from its inception.

Rude. ;-;

[Heretek]

Bah, the same can be said of Stalinism. We accept it here, but that doesn't mean anyone likes it. If you want your position to not be ridiculed, you basically have to defend and prove its superiority. This, for example, will likely become a flame thread against mutualism if few or no people advocate for it.

[TheIrrationalist]

there is no need to flame anyone. i just don't see mutualism ever having had relevancy, and i certainly don't see it gaining relevancy in the future either. to me mutualism seems to be one of those political tendencies that were/are supported by few people in the intelligentsia without ever having had any meaningful presence among working people and revolutionists. i just am not interested in pretty theories that don't have prevalence in reality. i'm interested in overturning this society, but i'm not too interested in pipe dreams or nice theories of some 900 year old fart.

Bah, the same can be said of Stalinism.

yes! because such a thing doesn't exist.

[OsirisTheMutualist]

Bah, the same can be said of Stalinism. We accept it here, but that doesn't mean anyone likes it. If you want your position to not be ridiculed, you basically have to defend and prove its superiority. This, for example, will likely become a flame thread against mutualism if few or no people advocate for it.

Defending a market free from capitalism is what I do best. :^D

[LionofTepelenë]

Unlike other people on this board, I tend to find mutualism to be a relatively interesting idea on paper. However unlike libertarian socialism it hasn't been shown to work effectively in the real world (with the exception of a guild system in SE France during the 18th century). I would like to see a defense of it though, since its arguments could be potentially easier to help against the ravages of the Ancaps/randroids.

[OsirisTheMutualist]

Unlike other people on this board, I tend to find mutualism to be a relatively interesting idea on paper. However unlike libertarian socialism it hasn't been shown to work effectively in the real world (with the exception of a guild system in SE France during the 18th century). I would like to see a defense of it though, since its arguments could be potentially easier to help against the ravages of the Ancaps/randroids.

Great to hear :^D

[d3crypt]

I have no clue what a Mutualist is. But if you are not in favor of capitalism, bigotry, or hierarchy , then we will probably get along.

[OsirisTheMutualist]

I have no clue what a Mutualist is. But if you are not in favor of capitalism, bigotry, or hierarchy , then we will probably get along.

A mutualist is someone who advocates for a market free from the state and from capitalism. The workers have individually or cooperatively owned property based on occupancy and use. There are two types of currency, the normal kind which will be competing currency and mutual credit. Very low interest at banks. The worker actually earns the full product of their labor, because they are either working for themselves or working at a business organized as a workplace democracy, the hierarchy seen at capitalist businesses is gone. That's really all a mutualist is.

[ckaihatsu]

A mutualist is someone who advocates for a market free from the state and from capitalism. The workers have individually or cooperatively owned property based on occupancy and use. There are two types of currency, the normal kind which will be competing currency and mutual credit. Very low interest at banks. The worker actually earns the full product of their labor, because they are either working for themselves or working at a business organized as a workplace democracy, the hierarchy seen at capitalist businesses is gone. That's really all a mutualist is.

If banks are seen to be 'cooperatively owned property', and gains / profits are to be made through banking, then such banks *won't* benefit from low-interest-rate conditions *or* from the existence of zero-interest ('mutual credit') lending.

Bank properties that are more-competitive and successfully collect returns on loans, and consolidate market share over areas of non-competitive 'mutual credit', will grow in size and influence, exactly like today's corporations.

[OsirisTheMutualist]

If banks are seen to be 'cooperatively owned property', and gains / profits are to be made through banking, then such banks *won't* benefit from low-interest-rate conditions *or* from the existence of zero-interest ('mutual credit') lending.

Bank properties that are more-competitive and successfully collect returns on loans, and consolidate market share over areas of non-competitive 'mutual credit', will grow in size and influence, exactly like today's corporations.

Banks aren't necessarily "cooperatively owned", if this is being used in the sense of the community as a whole managing a single bank. Anyone could open a bank and start distributing currency. However, if there are no entry barriers to issuing currency, and the people who use the currency can create self-organized institutions for issuing it, institutions that charge high interest will face competition, thus keeping interest rates low.

[Exterminatus]

How exactly is mutualism anything else but utopian drivel if we employ historical materialism?

[OsirisTheMutualist]

How exactly is mutualism anything else but utopian drivel if we employ historical materialism?

Do you mind explaining?

[ckaihatsu]

If banks are seen to be 'cooperatively owned property',

Banks aren't necessarily "cooperatively owned", if this is being used in the sense of the community as a whole managing a single bank.

Well, which *is* it -- would there be private-property 'ownership', or *wouldn't* there be -- ? You said initially that under mutualism there would be:

cooperatively owned property

Basically this boils down to whether there would be *competition* or not, based on exchange-value valuations, as represented in currency -- there can't be both competition and *non*-competition. Competition implies market-share, or 'turf'.


---

Anyone could open a bank and start distributing currency. However, if there are no entry barriers to issuing currency, and the people who use the currency can create self-organized institutions for issuing it, institutions that charge high interest will face competition, thus keeping interest rates low.

This is simply a *bad idea* to begin with, because of the resulting *balkanization* of currency instruments -- it's reminiscent of Byzantine Europe, with competing empires, before the consolidation of nation-states and economies.

If we add the dimension of *security* into the scenario we might find that customers would gladly pay a premium of higher interest rates for better *protection* of their chosen currency (loans), and for its *standardization* / coverage over greater areas, roughly similar to cellphone service today.

Also, nothing would preclude regular mergers-and-acquisitions, meaning that larger-scale organizations could / would benefit from efficiencies of scale and would buy out numerous mom-and-pop *small-scale* currency operations, thus -- again -- becoming like today's corporations.

[OsirisTheMutualist]

Sorry about the weird response format, couldn't find a way to comfortably respond without doing this.

“Well, which *is* it -- would there be private-property 'ownership', or *wouldn't* there be -- ? You said initially that under mutualism there would be:”
“Basically this boils down to whether there would be *competition* or not, based on exchange-value valuations, as represented in currency -- there can't be both competition and *non*-competition. Competition implies market-share, or 'turf'.”


Yes, in mutualism there is private property. No, this is not the same property “ownership” seen in capitalism. Mutualists believe property is only justly owned if it is actively used. If someone "owns" 3 acres of farmland but only has the manpower to actively farm on one acre of it, he is infringing on another's right to farm on that land themselves with their own manpower. Say that someone overaccumulates too much property. Their land would not be taken from them. "But then occupancy and use isn't applied!". Of course it is! They would be left alone. However, if that person isn't using it to its' full potential, then anyone can labor on it themselves. The landowner would not have the moral high ground if he attacks someone to get off of his property. If he shot for working on "his" land without his permission, he would be infringing their liberty, and you could see how this would be treated as a crime. So society would leave the property alone. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY PROPERTY THAT IS RIGHTFULLY YOURS. However, anyone could labor on the land themselves, because they have the right. There is another circumstance that allows this rule to naturally enforce itself, without the use of force. Owning more property than you can labor on, as an individual, is expensive. Because they aren't making a "profit" off of the labor they cannot do on that extra property, they would want to hire others to labor on the property FOR them, something that no one will do because of the lack of incentive, they have their own land to make money from. It isn't financially intelligent to own more than oneself can manage, so they would have to leave some it for others, or attempt to sell the land, although no one has any incentive to buy it.
A separate community does not own the mutual credit bank of one community, so it is private. All cooperatives are private, but not all private property is cooperative.


“This is simply a *bad idea* to begin with, because of the resulting *balkanization* of currency instruments -- it's reminiscent of Byzantine Europe, with competing empires, before the consolidation of nation-states and economies.

If we add the dimension of *security* into the scenario we might find that customers would gladly pay a premium of higher interest rates for better *protection* of their chosen currency (loans), and for its *standardization* / coverage over greater areas, roughly similar to cellphone service today.

Also, nothing would preclude regular mergers-and-acquisitions, meaning that larger-scale organizations could / would benefit from efficiencies of scale and would buy out numerous mom-and-pop *small-scale* currency operations, thus -- again -- becoming like today's corporations.”


Your comparison of competing banking to competing empires is inaccurate, that’s closer to an oligopoly competition than what I’m talking about. Empires are founded on force, while banks are founded on competition and trust.

Security for mutual credit currency is based on the property that currency is issued for. I would compare it to collateral with modern banking. There is no "fee" for security, that has nothing to do with banking fees.

Competition and diseconomies of scale precludes merger. You're assuming that one bank is capable of being larger than other banks to the point to where it can buy the lower banks, and you are assuming that it is even efficient to do that in the first place. Look up a Long Run Aggregate Total Cost Curve, LRATC curve for short. It is not efficient to simply "grow grow grow", that’s not the nature of the market.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, which *is* it -- would there be private-property 'ownership', or *wouldn't* there be -- ? You said initially that under mutualism there would be:





Basically this boils down to whether there would be *competition* or not, based on exchange-value valuations, as represented in currency -- there can't be both competition and *non*-competition. Competition implies market-share, or 'turf'.


---





This is simply a *bad idea* to begin with, because of the resulting *balkanization* of currency instruments -- it's reminiscent of Byzantine Europe, with competing empires, before the consolidation of nation-states and economies.

If we add the dimension of *security* into the scenario we might find that customers would gladly pay a premium of higher interest rates for better *protection* of their chosen currency (loans), and for its *standardization* / coverage over greater areas, roughly similar to cellphone service today.

Also, nothing would preclude regular mergers-and-acquisitions, meaning that larger-scale organizations could / would benefit from efficiencies of scale and would buy out numerous mom-and-pop *small-scale* currency operations, thus -- again -- becoming like today's corporations.

I'm not sure about whether or not I have to quote you for you to see a notification for this or something, but I responded.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry about the weird response format, couldn't find a way to comfortably respond without doing this.

No prob.

Yes, in mutualism there is private property. No, this is not the same property “ownership” seen in capitalism. Mutualists believe property is only justly owned if it is actively used. If someone "owns" 3 acres of farmland but only has the manpower to actively farm on one acre of it, he is infringing on another's right to farm on that land themselves with their own manpower. Say that someone overaccumulates too much property. Their land would not be taken from them. "But then occupancy and use isn't applied!". Of course it is! They would be left alone. However, if that person isn't using it to its' full potential, then anyone can labor on it themselves. The landowner would not have the moral high ground if he attacks someone to get off of his property. If he shot for working on "his" land without his permission, he would be infringing their liberty, and you could see how this would be treated as a crime. So society would leave the property alone. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY PROPERTY THAT IS RIGHTFULLY YOURS. However, anyone could labor on the land themselves, because they have the right. There is another circumstance that allows this rule to naturally enforce itself, without the use of force. Owning more property than you can labor on, as an individual, is expensive.

Okay, noted.

Because they aren't making a "profit" off of the labor they cannot do on that extra property, they would want to hire others to labor on the property FOR them, something that no one will do because of the lack of incentive, they have their own land to make money from.

Okay, I duly acknowledge the 'socialist' / communitarian basis of social relations and land use in this 'mutualist' model, but I have to remind that [1] not all land is of the same quality, [2] modern production, even for farming / food is *industrialized* (implying production goods / capital goods), and [3] today's humanity shouldn't *yearn* for a small-scale / individualistic basis of production when we already have the means of far-less-labor-intensive *mass* production methods.

If private property would continue to exist, both in land and in finance (capital goods), then there would be those with some kind of interest, albeit quasi-collective, in this private property, as for making *loans*, for the reward of *interest* (rentiership) -- otherwise why would anyone bother with the proprietary management of portions of capital / private-property -- ?

It isn't financially intelligent to own more than oneself can manage, so they would have to leave some it for others, or attempt to sell the land, although no one has any incentive to buy it.

Okay, again you're making it sound like all there is at-stake is *land*, when today's productivity decisions have more to do with factors of technological / tool *obsolescence*, financial *depreciation*, and corporatization / conglomeration of finance / capital goods.

A separate community does not own the mutual credit bank of one community, so it is private.

This approach is managerially / logistically *problematic*, though, because of its inherently *lateral*, 'patchwork' layout over any geographical terrain -- you may want to address the aspect of *scale*, as in coordination for production-in-common over larger areas in common.

All cooperatives are private, but not all private property is cooperative.

Understood.

Your comparison of competing banking to competing empires is inaccurate, that’s closer to an oligopoly competition than what I’m talking about. Empires are founded on force, while banks are founded on competition and trust.

Well it's a very blurry line between the two, banks and empires, since both are judged on their *solvency* (capital valuation), and the historical partnership can't be denied.

Security for mutual credit currency is based on the property that currency is issued for. I would compare it to collateral with modern banking. There is no "fee" for security, that has nothing to do with banking fees.

Since private property would continue to exist under 'mutualism', it would have to be valuated somehow, and large differentials in valuation from one parcel of land to the next (more-desirable vs. less-desirable) would invite *financialization* and profit-making based on arbitrage (and also rentiership), which is no different from today's capitalism.

Competition and diseconomies of scale precludes merger.

No, they don't -- it's simply a *wish* on your part that everything concerning land (and capital) would remain *compartmentalized* according to geography -- if some better coordination, as for crop production, could be done over broader areas, then it *could* certainly take place, *could* be more efficient overall, and could be more *profitable* with its capital outlays than smaller-scale localist production. It would effectively transcend *locality* since it would be extracting new amounts of exchange-value in the process, also known as 'capital accumulation' -- again, no different from capitalism.

You're assuming that one bank is capable of being larger than other banks to the point to where it can buy the lower banks, and you are assuming that it is even efficient to do that in the first place. Look up a Long Run Aggregate Total Cost Curve, LRATC curve for short. It is not efficient to simply "grow grow grow", that’s not the nature of the market.

I'll pass on this and leave you to make your own arguments -- I'm referencing the history of capitalism for my points since you are including all of the elements of capitalism in your 'mutualist' model.

I'm not sure about whether or not I have to quote you for you to see a notification for this or something, but I responded.

No prob.

[ckaihatsu]

Just wanted to follow up with an alternative model of my own making for a post-capitalist political economy:

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

In practice everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

[I] developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/entries/11...-labor-credits

---


And, complementarily:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'