So, Holla Forums, at what age did you grow up from ancom utopian fantasies and finally embraced mutualism?

LAW

I went the other way.

OF

VALUE

Am I allowed to privately own the means of production in a mutualist society?

as long as you don't exploit other's labour, yes

It's fitting that the mutualism flag is so similar to the ancap flag since they're just as retarded.

Did you know that if you mix red and yellow you get orange?

never because you're wrong

That's you. That's what you sound like.

The tendency is actually the opposite. Mutualism is babby ancap's first intro to leftism.

Holla Forums more like /half reformed Holla Forumsacks who pretend to read books but really don't and just suck russian dick because they romanticize history much the same as the reactionaries the claim to hate/

Just to clarify - the left ball is real mutualism.

In this form of Mutualism, all property is abolished (replaced by the occupancy-and-use rights) and the means of production become communal in nature. The workers would manage the means of production under the principles of usufruct (responsible usage) at the discretion of the community. This likely takes the form of worker-controlled "cooperatives" similarly to syndicalism. Such operations could essentially be providing goods and services to the community for free, but might also seek remuneration for their labor, in proportion to the amount and type of labor performed, as well as have the cost of the materials used refunded. The price of the goods and services sold this way would not exceed the cost of their production. This exchange takes place via a kind of "mutualist market" where workers and the general populace conduct exchange on the principles of reciprocity (as outlined above). Workers receive no more than the full value of their labor and the commune receives whatever good or service is being provided without needing to pay any more than what was necessary for production.

The means of production would be available to any qualified person that could be accommodated and people would be free to use them at will without necessarily needing to be part of a co-op or needing permission from anyone (providing they meet the standards for usufruct). Thus the largest sectors of the economy might be scarcely distinguishable from communism. There the fruits of labor, originating from communal effort, would be considered freely available to all. The ratio of "market" economic production to "communal" economic production would over time adjust itself to best fit the community's needs.

To sum it up: there is no private property or wage labor. Production is carried out, not for profit, but for the purposes of satisfying the needs of the people. The market would not operate on the basis of exchange value, but according to the real costs of production. Profit and exploitation (as they exist in capitalism) would be eliminated and mutual-aid would form the basis of society.

It's not doomed state socialism so it's right wing though. The only real leftists are red fascists who will preserve capitalism as is our goal.

Just read Proudhon. He was the creator of Mutualism and still the best theorist of it IMO

No. Property is Theft.

property is liberty

Can you replace working class ownership of the means of production with individual worker ownership of their own means of production but still have the end goal of creating communism? Like anarcho-marxism? Create mutualism by simply not enforcing private property rights but still enforcing personal property rights, and then naturally migrating to communism when the means of production become sufficiently automated and are no longer personal property of the worker?

Establish a organization with the sole responsibility of collectivizing institutions which economic rent can be derived such as the land and any natural monopoly, and have it structured simply as a collectively owned company to create a form of universal basic income or basic services. (I’m not too versed in anarchism would there be a better way of doing this)

property is broberty

sage

That's nice, but if you're going to eliminate private property and 'most' markets, why bother retaining remuneration for labour at all? Why not just freely distribute all goods? Why retain production for exchange? Why retain artificial barriers between the workplace and the public?

Why do mutualists always constantly contradict themselves in their descriptions of mutualist society? It seems like for every phrase suggesting
there is an equal and opposite statement suggesting they
and
What makes you think that a mode of production straddling capitalism and communism makes any sense? What makes you think it won't just return to capitalism or discard the outmoded vestiges of scarcity-based economics in favour of actual Communism?

Why propose a system
at all? Why not just build communism?

I mean, I wouldn't oppose any of that. If the community decides to simply do away with markets and money entirely, that would be great. But would I want to force that system on people? No. Therefore, it's entirely possible that some of them might choose to engage in monetary exchange. Markets may simply work better for certain things, so I think that should be an option as well. I fully expect the end result of Mutualism to be advancement into higher-stage communism, but if that's the case then mutualism would serve as a good transitionary mechanism.

Nope

nice run-down

What do my Mutualbros suggest I read to better understand Mutualism?
HARDMODE
No Proudhon

Yes, it's the whole point.

Shawn P Wilbur

Does he? In "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism" he seems to connect Proudhon to individualist anarchism, which he says has become lifestylism.

lol

I don't think anyone would say Proudhon isn't connected to individualist anarchism, but even that doesn't have to be lifestylism. Mutualism especially isn't.

STOP with this cancerous form of thinking. There is no linear advancement and there never was.

Free market, actually individualist socialist economy. Proudhon is good. Audiobook is free on Librivox.

This is wrong.

I'm having a hard time understanding how all this will be implemented without state force. I also don't see any class rising up and demanding this to replace capitalism, unless co-ops somehow become a dominating way to organise production.

Agorism

Just reading about this and sorry but this pretty much turned me off mutualism forever. If I understand this correctly it's a strategy to grow the black market to such an extent that it will end all tax revenue to the state, therefore killing it. The part I don't understand is how you can see the black market as a bastion of freedom: aren't black market actors tyrannical organisations like gangs, based on force and theft, acting as both capitalist and state at the same time? How is this better than state-capitalism?
lol

Black markets, by definition, exist against/without state interference. When you mention "gangs" you're essentially invoking the worst aspects of black markets. You're ignoring, for example, farmer's co-ops that grow and trade food without state sanction. Or even video game piracy/the anti-DRM/anti-copyright movement.

Agorism isn't limited to black markets, either, it's also inclusive of "gray" markets.

It isn't meant to be a revolutionary tactic in and of itself - it's more of a tool for organization. It could be used as part of a dual-power strategy.

I wouldn't really consider agorism part of mutualist theory considering that I've never seen any major mutualist theorist advocate it. Also, the "black market" in agorism has nothing to do with organized crime. It just means conducting business outside of state supervision/authority. Think of it like downloading and trading pirated movies - that kind of thing.

More like grey markets. Just removing government completely. Black markets is a market of illegal products as defined by the state, like buckey balls or cocaine. Grey markets is just trading everything without the state. Set up a farming co-op without registering it. Sell food to your neighbors without out tax.

...

Then what is the mutualists revolutionary strategy? Ancoms have a pretty clear view of revolutionary strategy(even if it is outdated), and their revolutonary movements have historcally gained a lot of power and even been close to succeeding on multiple occassions

That makes a lot more sense, so I'm guessing this strategy will appeal to the self employed/co-op workers class interests primarily?

How do you stop cooperatives from doing things like hiring non-owning employees or selling out to capitalist business without a state?

There is no mutualist revolutionary strategy. Like I said it's more of a method of organizing the economy. It's not a "movement" like anarcho-communism it's just a set of rules that can be applied within other movements.

Most libertarian socialist movements (such as rojava, chiapas, CNT/FAI) featured market exchange as part of their economy and could arguably be considered variants of mutualism.

It's utopian in the sense that it would be the best, IMO

But it's non-utopian in that it's far more practical and easy to implement than communism

I'm not OP, but I can try to answer this.
Under mutualist norms of usufruct, the moment you started working at a particular enterprise, you become an equal partner in its "ownership". The act of labor itself establishes one's relationship to the means of production.
I imagine the community will go to great lengths to use contracts and titles that make "selling out" this way impossible.

Yeah he's definitely critical of the individualism in it, but he gives credit where credit is due in regards to Proudhon's conception of a confederal society

You don't understand what "utopian" means

"Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."

Also none of them have worked because they were in fact utopian and they totally ignored an actual analysis of the material conditions of the society they currently found themselves in with an eye to identifying those parts that pointed the way toward a new society, preferring instead to construct a perfect model of how everything would be great if we traded like this instead of like that, and made this illegal instead of that, all apropos of nothing.