Why all the hate for mutualism?

Mutualism is ded, I don't see why anybody would bother hating it

Irrelevant outside collections of autists and as an example of why not to trust socdems.

markets a shit

Why should anarchists support a system where almost all of the conditions of Capitalism are still in tact? It's literally "capitalism without capitalists", it makes no gaddamn sense.

Labor vouchers in a market system just isn't realistic. It always seems to devolve in either ancap or technocracy.

congrats on the newfound autism bookchinfag

brah you need a way to set prices

yeah central planning

If you don't think currency can be abolished then why are you even a Leftist?

I'm a Distributist.

Top kek

every time I come here expecting real discussion I am sorely disappointed.
this board is fucking gay

Then why don't you try to actually steer it in that direction instead of bitching? For instance, you could share your opinions on Mutualism.

Real answer: None of them have any idea what Mutualism even is. They also seem to have trouble differentiating between real Mutualism and Carsonian neo-Mutualism. Hopefully this graphic will help them.

Why is it always the people that contribute nothing complaining about board quality?

Would Rojava be considered an example of the last case?

Who knows? I haven't found much actual data on the economy of Rojava, have you? Not trying to be facetious or whatever, I'm legitimately curious, and it seems to be a question that the PissPig dodges. I've read some critiques of Rojava that says that there is some presence of money, but I haven't gotten much more data than that.

Distributism is a right-wing ideology. Get out.

From what I understand Rojava is closer to "classical" Mutualism with the emphasis on communal ownership. This is in accordance with Proudhon's theory. Neo-mutualism, by comparison, is highly privatized.

Rojava's economy is definitely strange. According to sources up to 80% has been communalized. In some areas money appears to be used, and in some areas it is shunned. There are also local price controls, etc.

It's difficult to assess completely because of how decentralized the system is and the lack of solid statistics.

Are you currently working on taking your first baby steps outside the established political paradigm?

I remember reading that people won't touch money and would rather give you stuff for free. Obviously since this is an user's secondhand anecdote I don't expect you to believe it, but I don't remember where I saw it.

This is actually interesting. It might be useful if you posted some literature on the matter, or links. Also, completely random, but is Mutualism anything like Parecon?

would love to hear how """left-wing""" market anarchism wouldn't just degenerate into capitalism without having to read 821560260 pdfs

Most of the literature I'm basing this on is from Proudhon himself (the classical variant) or from the Center for a Stateless Society (neo-mutualism). You can visit them at c4ss.org and you can find Proudhon's stuff via google.

Parecon involves far more planning IMO than Mutualism does. Mutualism lets the "workers" handle much of the "planning" in a decentralized market-based economy. This is of course, attenuated by the basic principles of "equal exchange" and the typical burdens of responsibility placed on property-holders by the expectations of the community.

Why not look at Rojava instead? Instead of degenerating, it's communalized system has expanded.

I actually think you're right, but it's difficult to tell considering how vague and contradictory reports.

Yeah but that's an isolated war economy. I don't know if I would call it representative.

So you admit you've read nothing about Mutualism but somehow assume it will "degenerate into capitalism" anyway? Why would it? You have to provide a critique before people can attempt to debunk it.

I think that it's because most Leftists view markets as inherently toxic to all other pillars of society. The assumption is that "limited markets" is an oxymoron because greed will always result in those markets coming to influence areas in which their influence should be checked under frameworks like mutualism.

Because it's petit-bourgeois capitalism. Proudhon in Philosophy of Poverty literally says striking would be seen as illegitimate under mutualism and an uprising against its justness; that workers could not possibly oppose it because it's inherently fair in his mind.

As said Rojava is a war economy in no way even close to achieving its ideals, which subsides heavily on external support in many shapes. As a mode of production, the ideal of communalism is not even post-capitalistic. Whether it "works" or not will be decided by if it survives the civil war and then lasts. To use any other metric would be to claim that pic related is the result of Marxism-Leninism and not just military wit. For Cuba we would thus conversely use the long-lasting existence of it until today to make a judgement, or at least a few years of the stable version of the "ideal" of it.

It's not that I hate it, in as much as I think it is not a viable revolutionary strategy for contemporary capitalism. To quote Bookchin:

"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." - social-ecology.org/wp/1999/08/thoughts-on-libertarian-municipalism/

Because only a centrally planned state economy can bring about any practical workable socialism that doesn't revert back to porky in a week.

h o w

doing absolutely nothing wrong and being the greatest leftist leader of all time not even joking

"Greed" cannot exist in any meaningful sense under Mutualism ( a system that abolishes accumulation and profit). It's the equivalent of saying that "greedy people" can just take all the bread out of the food stores in Communism or something.

More like that striking wouldn't make sense under Mutualism since every worker has control over every aspect of their work in Mutualism. In other words - the only reason someone would go "on strike" would be to blackmail the community somehow. That's obviously excellent.

your mom is still capitalism

...

I agree with chinchin that here-and-now Mutualism ( in the form of worker co-cops and such) isn't going to abolish Capitalism by itself, but that doesn't invalidate the whole ideology.

I.e. you imagine a model and when someone points out its contradictions and how they would compel workers to rebel your answer is that it would be illegitimate and therefore wouldn't happen. This is literally the argument porkies make against striking in vanilla capitalism: things work because I say so, and if you disagree you're not playing fair.

And this isn't even getting to the bottom of it. Proudhon imagined his mutualism with a tax on consumption; mutualism is quite literally a horizontalized-democratized capitalism.

What reason, do you imagine, could possibly compel workers to "Rebel" against their own worker-controlled enterprise? What "contradictions" are you talking about?

This doesn't even make sense tbh. Would it change your mind if I said mutualists don't have to support a consumption tax?

They already do it, see PDF related. It's an enthograpy of the Mondragon Cooperative system, principally inspired by Proudhon's mutualism, which is typically held to be the paradigmatic cooperative. This book shows that there's still class conflict in workers' cooperatives, which is merely masked by the cooperative form of the enterprise. Even worse is that this cooperative inter-firm democracy and horizontalism, despite already being flimsily upheld, does not keep the workers from violently monopolizing new ventures and exploiting labor where it is underdeveloped. Mondragon pays Polish workers wages in near-nothing, and uses Chinese labor for manufacturing like it's nothing.

I know, tell Proudhon about it, not me.

Proudhon did: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm

Seems very unlikely.

sekrit finns

the real terror was the firm all along

time to switch flairs

Mondragon is not worker-controlled. It's a capitalist corporation that pays lip-service to cooperative principles. This is like declaring publicly-funded programs in the USA to be examples of "socialism". Next I expect you'll be lecturing me about how the USSR "proves communism don't work" and how I should move to Venezuela.

Still irrelevant. And I'm not going to accept secondhand accounts anyway, given how easily they are distorted.

What would people be greedy for? Profit is not allowed. Accumulation is not allowed. Participating in greedy behavior would be a violation of the core principles of Mutualism.

Mondragon is a federation of worker cooperatives. Is this what "not real market socialism" looks like? Even your great friend Richard D. Wolff calls it socialism. Speaking of which, do you have time to talk about Marxian economics? :^)

Adherents of Venezuela do not call it communism, they call it socialism. Speaking of which, the Venezuelan sector is also dominated by cooperative enterprise. I don't consider this either socialism or communism.

No, I do not wish anyone to go live in a petro-populist social democracy. Again, I don't consider either socialism or communism.

That's fucking Marx replying to Proudhon's attack on Marx. It's fully cited. This text ended Proudhon's career ffs.

The argument well-read Marxists raise is that mutualism still operates within the law of value and that mere shifts in ownership do not constitute away from the capitalist mode of production.

The equivalent of saying: the core principles of capitalism are liberty, individualism and meliorism, so the contradictions of capitalism is no realz.

Sadly, mutualism is dead. There aren't many people who know what mutualism is. Understanding the difference between mutualism and free market capitalism already requires a leftist analysis of economics, so the number of people who we can explain it to is limited.

That said. I think mutualism is pretty lit. Syndicalism would be ideal wherever possible but I don't really have any problem with free markets as long as they aren't accompanied by private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and absentee ownership of personal and real property. As mutualism usually opposes these aspects of capitalism, I don't really have any problem with it. Anyone who says "mutualism is still capitalism" is missing the point.

It also may have some advantages if it were to be resurrected. I know that the concept of economic calculation is bullshit, but proposing a system that can solve the economic calculation problem is an advantage in garnering support from mainstream economists. Mutualism also has the potential to gain support from people who are traditionally right-wing libertarians, as the aspect of capitalism that these people are usually most attached to is free markets as opposed to private ownership of the means of production and wage labor.

Mutualism is dumb in a world where production is increasingly automated

Venezuelan sector is also dominated by cooperative enterprise

source

venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11034
venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7067
workerscontrol.net/system/files/docs/malleson.pdf

That's exactly what I'm saying. Do you not understand the principle of workers' self-management? It doesn't apply to Mondragon at all. If you knew anything about this topic I wouldn't even have to say that.

Sorry, for blaspheming your god Marx, but I'm an anarchist. I do not always agree with him.

Here's the first decent argument you've raised. But there is plenty of room for debate on this issue. Is it one you wish to explore further?

Capitalism has no such "principles". You are merely repeating propaganda. I'm speaking of actual principles that will be actually enforced under Mutualism.

you faggots still believe in inflated numbers of Simo ?

how this is capitalism ?

Start with 'Markets not Capitalism'

The fuck does this have to do with Marx as a god? You asked me to source Proudhon designing mutualism as having a consumption tax and the refusal of striking under it because he saw it as being sabotage; something that could be an injustice under the model he thought would not contain any worker discontent. There it is for you.

Depends. Marx concludes that we cannot consider a society socialistic at all if it is still bound by the law of value and all other contradictions pertinent to production for market exchange. The onus is thus on you to pick up where Proudhon here completely gave up.

Precisely. These principles are espoused by its adherents: the bourgeoisie. Saying things won't happen under mutualism the way I claim they will just because you said so is the equivalent.

The moment you have to "enforce" something in a mode of production shows you are mending inherent contradictions of it. To say that you have to actively enforce the following, in the formulation of profit is "not allowed", accumulation is "not allowed" is to say that the system must compensate with superstructural laws for phenomena inherently present in your model.

The entire concept of imagining post-capitalism in "models" is already inherently utopian; we cannot accurately hypoethesize the advent of socialism, only abolish that which is elementary to it.

"Worker cooperatives" in popular jargon is a border meaningless buzzword akin to terms like "workplace democracy". All it usually means is that the employees own a significant number of shares in the company. Most of the time they have little to no control over the actual administration of the corporation.

Your first line seems to have vanished?

I never asked you that. I merely explained the context under which Proudhon would consider such an action irrational (or "unjust"). You replied with something about a consumption tax that I continue to maintain is irrelevant and you've still given no direct proof of Proudhon advocating the necessity of such a tax in mutualism anyway.

No, I'm saying they won't happen because such behavior would be both alien and abhorrent to Mutualism if not rendered entirely impossible? Do you not understand that, in a system that explicitly rejects exploitation, that exploitative elements would find it difficult to flourish?

I'm using "enforce" in a broad sense here. The very existence of mutualism enforces it's own method the same way that capitalism, by its existence, continually reinforces itself. I do not claim that it need never be enforced through overt violence, but the same is true of communism or any other form of social organization you can name. No magical communist god is going to stop people form doing bad things under communism either. Ultimately you expect most people to conform to the values of the society that they live in. What else is stopping me from just eating all the bread out of your communist storehouses on a whim?

OMG HE LITERALLY KILLED DOZENS! HE WAS A BRUTAL DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone explain what the big difference even is?

Dumb central planners doing dumb shit, pay no attention to those idiots

Fighting poorly trained and demoralized conscripts with hardened highly motivated guerrilla's, along with having knowledge of nearby mountainous terrain which you use to your advantage.

It was first published 8 years before Proudhon's dead and just in small numbers, you are fucking retarded

Withou a central government backing up currency, (anarchism) there cannot be a chance for the law of value to exist, as no one will trust money to have any value, so prices won't equal labour time

Yes we can, your kind is just extremely autistic and dont even know the basics of what you are trying to discuss

While as a Communist I find markets unnecessary and inefficient, that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to say they're the exact same as Capitalism like a lot of the chuckefucks in this thread. Mutualism and Market Socialism might be obsolete, but that doesn't mean they're bad or even close to Capitalism.

I got you fam.

It's too Utopian and not that well though out

This. Marx never states that markets are Capitalism. Capitalism is defined by a combination of private ownership of means of production, wage labor, and surplus value extraction. Only Liberals and anarchists who read Chomsky think markets=capitalism, and mostly because that way you can project Capitalism onto all of human history.

They hate it because it works.

If workers own the means of production its capitalism. If state run by elite party members own the means of production its communism.

You are delusional, anarchism has made the distinction between markets and capitalism for quite some time now, it is retarded leftcoms and luxembourgists the ones that belive markets are foced to work within the law of value

Woah bucko, slow down, I never said all Anarchists, I'm just saying Chomsky indulges in this meme quite a bit.

because it needs the state to be capitalist, or something like the state.

Maybe because its main advocate cried making a video responding to one of his critics?

link pls?

Eat my ass pirate nerd

I can't find it but look up invinciblenumanist and republicofsandals. Just two stupid ass video bloggers. The former is a mutualist and he cried making a video response. I used to know that guy and he's a real fag once you get to know him. He likes to act tough and fuck with people.

The audacity of this cunt

But there's a lot of leftcom too.

That text is filled to the brim with fabrications, like literally made-up quotes. See: anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/review-poverty-philosophy-karl-marx

That's the wrong reason to hate mutualism, friendo

youtube.com/watch?v=dBZxth7SMmM

There is some stupid tankies on this board who think that control of the means of production by a bureaucratic higher class is socialism and systems in which the workers own the means of production is capitalism.

I really don't know what is wrong with the heads of tankies.