Does anyone else think that mutualism would lead to communism? I don't know a lot about the ideology...

Does anyone else think that mutualism would lead to communism? I don't know a lot about the ideology, so I'd love for someone to explain it to me.

Other urls found in this thread:

social-ecology.org/wp/1999/08/thoughts-on-libertarian-municipalism/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Doesn't mutualism involve markets? Then no, it can't lead to Communism.

Mutualism can be used as some kind of NEP for anarchists.

Yet for some reason markets wont lead to communism, despote this being the basic dialetic position, you autist?

mutalism and other co-operative movements won't lead to communism by themselves as

A) they can't get hold of serious production


B) global capitalism squashes any potential growth


– Reform or Revolution

THANK YOU BASED LUXMEBURGIST.

Socdems did the right thing

You need a revolution to abolish capitalism.

you don't believe in the revolutionary potential of Rosa's Reich :P

Why would this be true?

fag

Mutualism is a meme philosophy that seems to owe it's heritage to a skimming of wiki articles.

Proudhon didn't advocate mutualism as it's modern day followers understand it. It is impossible to separate Proudhon from his time, he was in fact liberal. The philosophy is closer to a pure liberalism in the classical sense, rather than a true socialist philosophy. His advanced theory could easily be the precursor to Bakunins anarchism. But to attribute this market anarchism is specious.

The fact that I have yet to see a self proclaimed mutualist that wasn't also a lifestylists reinforces my perspective.

TLDR: The annil shitposter is a libtard

Without just quoting the paragraph above the one I posted, if the capitalist market is still in place, the co-op will have to deal with the forces of global capitalist competition, which are naturally corrosive to cooperatives just not becoming capitalist companies. And in fact, as we have seen in real life, if cooperatives get too big, they just become capitalist. As a result, a cooperative can only remain a cooperative within capitalism if it remains small, and thus has no real revolutionary potential.

[citation needed]


Production in kekelonia, syndicalism and the way the IWW was able to control prodiction prettymuch proves workers ownership and control is possible

While syndicalism has their own disadvantage, they come from the fact that the legal apparatus is still in place

Besides, rosa is arguing in bad faith, she claims that coops are unable to take charge of big industry, while at the same time arguing that big industry and global markets must be abolished


Suck my cock faggot

1v1 fag, debate me, ill crush you

Revolutionary Spain was not in the global capitalist economy, they were either in a war economy, or a socialist one.


this isn't what she is saying at all

Production in kekelonia WAS comtrolled by the workers and this is independent of the outside and internal conflicts, I am just quoting HOW prodiction took place, and production there was collectivized

How? Reading the paragraphs you posted explains just that

By communitarianism, I refer to movements and ideologies that seek to transform society by creating so-called alternative economic and living situations such as food cooperatives, health centers, schools, printing workshops, community centers, neighborhood farms, “squats,” unconventional lifestyles, and the like. Allowing for the works of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the notable spokespersons of communitarianism have been Martin Buber, Harry Boyte, and Colin Ward, among many others. The word communitarian is often interchangeable with the word cooperative, a form of production and exchange that is attractive because the work is not only amiably collective but worker-controlled or worker-managed.

At most, communitarianism seeks to gently edge social development away from privately owned enterprises—banks, corporations, supermarkets, factories, and industrial systems of agriculture—and the lifeways to which they give rise, into collectively owned enterprises and values. It does not seek to create a power center that will overthrow capitalism; it seeks rather to outbid it, outprice it, or outlast it, often by presenting a moral obstacle to the greed and evil that many find in a bourgeois economy. It is not a politics but a practice, whose constituency is often a relatively small group of people who choose to buy from or work in a particular cooperative enterprise.

Citing Proudhon as one of the fathers of communitarianism dates the inception of this ideology and practice back about 150 years, to an age when most workers were craftspersons and most food cultivators were peasants. During the intervening years, many cooperatives have been formed with the most far-reaching hopes and idealistic intentions—only to fail, stagnate, or turn into profit-oriented enterprises. In order to survive in the capitalist marketplace and withstand the competition of larger, more predatory, profit-oriented enterprises, they have normally been obliged to adapt to it.

Where cooperatives have been able to maintain themselves against capitalist competition, they tend to become introverted, basically centered on their internal problems and collective interests; and to the extent that they link together, they do so in order to focus on ways and means to stay alive or expand as enterprises. Above all, they rarely, if ever, become centers of popular power—partly because they are not concerned with addressing issues of power as such, and partly too because they have no way of mobilizing people around visions of how society should be controlled.

While working and/or living in cooperatives may be desirable in order to imbue individuals with collectivist values and concerns, they do not provide the institutional means for acquiring collective power. Underpinning their social ideas—before these ideas fade into dim memory—is the hope that they can somehow elbow capitalism out, without having to confront capitalist enterprises and the capitalist state. Time tends to increase these parochial tendencies, making cooperatives more introverted, more parochial, more like collective capitalists than social collectivists, and ultimately more capitalistic than socialistic in their practices and interests. - Bookchin
social-ecology.org/wp/1999/08/thoughts-on-libertarian-municipalism/

She is saying that co-operatives can only work *if* global markets are abolished.

Rosa views such an abolition of global markets to be an absurdity.

The system isn't transitory, it's an end-in-itself.
Every prole owns their own miniature means of production, Proudhon advocated for a society of artisan craftsmen. Money is replaced by labour vouchers that are destroyed upon a "purchase" so that you couldn't pile up currency to use it as exploitable leverage over those who have less vouchers.

That assessment of the viability of co-ops presupposes their coexistence within the capitalist system and the goal of eventually superseding private enterprise. If you forcibly seize the means of production and hand them over to worker co-ops then you don't have this problem.

mutualists and ancaps are the same fuck off before i violate the NAP OP

lolno, mutualists don't believe in private property or the NAP.

Mutualism is the kind of a nuts and bolts version of communism (this is a gross over simplification please don't tweak)


Not even close.


Mutualists tend to believe that markets are in an inevitable part of human beings conducting trade. This doesn't mean we're Ancaps, workers still control the means of production, ownership is marked by occupancy and use. There's no extraction of surplus value

I really like Mutualism. I wish it was more popular and had more organized groups. It's hard to find a lot of newer content about it.

that only for producer's coop and not workers coop

Look into left-wing market anarchism.

Actually that's the very reason why it will lead to communism. The tendency towards monopoly will create massive worker controlled economic units that span entire industries. All you have to do then is transfer their ownership to the general public, or put them under a public mandate, and you have socialism.

A market by definition means a currency system and the persuit of profit. A mutualist co-op might not exploit its workers, but is still capitalist in the sense that it will put profit above common interests. Mutualism would never be able to solve problems like global warming, and there certainly would be a difference of the quality of life of people depending on what branch they work. There would also be unemployment