How would mutualism prevent the catastrophic destruction of the environment for the sake of profit...

Post boipucci

Not gay but that made me pop a boner

Post dick pics.

In mutualism the price of a good is supposed to be exactly equal to the cost of producing it. "Profit" doesn't exist under mutualism. That's the whole point.

Explain?

When it causes extreme weather patterns, coastal erosion, disruption of ocean currents and mass extinctions? Definitely.

Except that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. There's also nitrous oxide and methane. The first stays in the environment much longer than CO2, while the emissions of the second will explode with the melting of the permafrost.

I like how it's being implied they're just exaggerating instead of rightfully pointing out the danger we're in.

Do you actually get your climate change science from the guardian, or have you actually tried reading these studies?

Hyperbole. Just we won't literally drown doesn't mean it won't affect us negatively and severely.

Except there are bigger problems than just sea levels rising.

This is why ecology needs to be taught in schools.

It wouldn't. The biggest argument marketfags have here is that horizontalizing firms and equalizing shareholding will create an easy to achieve reformist basis upon which an actual post-law of value could be created, but that goes counter to what the Marxist critique has constantly said about the base not merely being productive relations. It's the same with the crypto-Kautskyist Stalinists who propose it all under a red bureaucracy.

Marx even critiques the French socialists of his time in Grundrisse for unknowingly seeing socialism as the "capitalist ideal"; capitalism untainted by capital. Socialism is the full negation of private property and commodity based production, not just capitalism restructured. Do you think capitalism starts with how profits are distributed?

PDF related. It's an enthograpy of the Mondragon cooperative system, which is typically held to be the paradigmatic cooperative. This book shows that there's still class conflict in workers' cooperatives, but that it is merely masked by the cooperative form of the enterprise. Cooperatives, and especially big dog Mondragon, are all just as exploitative and ruthless as standard industrial organizations like Ltds in the face of socially necessary labor time and the law of value they are subjected to (and which they have to uphold). Mondragon is actually one of the bigger exploiters of Polish logistics for its business, and pays Chinese workers the regular fee (a shit wage) for mass-production too.

Hate to quote Bordiga, but he was right when he said that the hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that it has a boss.

I recall seeing this on youtube, but I lost the link. Do you have one?

There are alternatives to the mondragon system though. See Rojava.

www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/rojava-revolution-on-hoof

What is the work where he says that? I've wanted to read Bordiga for some time, but I don't know where to start.

McIntyre's all you need :^)

Cancer.

I'm not a trap by the way, none of that pucci shit.

There is no private property duuhh

So if some industry is polluting we can take it over and close it or change its modus operandi as possession is voluntary

A better question is how do planningcucks pretend to do so, as if everyone planned to pollute, there is nothing left to do to help the environment

Post bum tbqhwy

Brain damage

Those webms all come from The Law of Value series, by Kapitalism 101 (Brendan McCooney): youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7. The excerpt from that webm comes from the parts on socially necessary labor time.

>opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/rojava-revolution-on-hoof
Variations on the same disease, many coming from the likes of Schweickaert and Graeber, and all of them carefully avoid touching the pertinent subject of Marx's theories of law of value and socially necessary labor time. I'll give this a read nonetheless, but as you'll find out by watching the LoV series I linked above, the best we can do with cooperative firms is find and sustain them in a way that is the least subject to the workings and contradictions of capitalism, but again we cannot alter their basic workings.

Paraphrased from: marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/doctrine.htm, also see: marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/murder.htm.

I'm saving this and you can't stop me.

Don't do that. This is the last thing.

...

Gulag these individuals

All me

Who is "we"? The government? Do you expect random people to give a shit about the long term effects on the environment if it gives them the cheaper product in the end?

The people, Yes actually, do you think people whose lives are affected by pollution of rivers dont do anything due to laziness? They dont act because taking action will end them in jail

When is it ever so simple? Let' say a bunch of companies make use of oil-based products as fuel, which should strike no one as a particularly shocking scenario. Makes them tons of money, everyone is happy about it. This destroys the climate in the long term in a subtle way which is not immediately noticeable. What motivates them to change anything?

Of course, anarchism is reciprocal, in order to stop the polluting oil industry we need to replace it

But why would they do that when it makes them a good profit and investing a ton of money in less profitable alternatives would cause them to lose out to their less scrupulous rivals?

But not everyone gets a share of those profits user, only the workers that engage in such cooperatives, and since everyone can join coops as there is no private property, the amount of value each workers gets in return is less, meaning they will invest their energy in alternative energies

Generating energy from other sources is more profitable if you take away government incentives

But that's exactly what's happening.

Anarcho-mutualism does not have profit driven ideals like capitalism ideals.
Basically no. But that's not a good enough answer. But first I want to know why you assume it would be. By that logic one can ask "Wouldn't each commune still be inclined to maximize resources by disregarding the state of the environment in their competition with one another?"

...

Ahh the reactionary's step before actual socialism

kys you inbred

It wouldn't, but it would at least be more likely to transition to a centrally organized, socialist system in extreme situations, because people would not be brainwashed to hate communism.

How and why would communes compete if they're all producing for actual use rather than exchange in a society without money?

Hot diggidy dog

see

mutualism is socialism

They might if their populations grow enough.

and not a single climate scientist has come out to vindicate you, maybe they're all paying each other off
or maybe porky spreads misinfo to make it seem like the science isn't decisive because he want's fossil fuel profits
what could possibly be more likely

mutualism would still need a socdem state

That guy didn't say global warming didn't exist, to be fair.