I need help taking the final "red" pill

I want to go full red.

Why does supporting Mutualism still make me a capitalist (TM) bourgeoisie scumbag?

Other urls found in this thread:

c4ss.org/content/35256
classicalite.com/articles/15493/20150123/kansas-city-libertarian-activist-confesses-child-molestation-according-facebook-post.htm
libcom.org/library/exchange.
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

that's not wrong

Because mutualism does away with none of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

lmao k

this


nice reddit spacing
redistributing property does not end capitalism

what's the difference between mutualism and AnCap?

Pedophilia.

the amounts of autism

Does mutualism abolish commodity production, capital, wage labour and markets?

Mutualism doesn't have the idealist NAP i don't think.

Mutualists are less obnoxious and less likely to be crypto-fascists. Also

Mutualists are actual anarchists.

Mutualism is utopian liberalism

...

Mutualism would have to entail a strengthening of the commons and a more equal distribution of resources to work, and this is something that market forces intrinsically oppose. You could make a mutualist society work, but it would require constant balancing to sustain, and even then I'm not sure you could keep it going indefinitely.

Just had a quick read through the theory on Wikipedia
One of the funny points i can see is "limit the cost of price"
Does anyone get what that means?
The way i'm interpreting it is that the price charged for services and goods is at cost to the labourer/manufacturer
so… is mutualism capitalism where nobody makes a profit?
i cant see porky going for a capitalism where you dont get fatter

At least ancaps don't pretend to be socialists.

WRONG
The founder of C4SS raped his daughter
c4ss.org/content/35256
classicalite.com/articles/15493/20150123/kansas-city-libertarian-activist-confesses-child-molestation-according-facebook-post.htm

Mutualists are less edgy ancaps

Well shit, I guess that means there is no difference then.

no but it has a cooler flag

Forgive me for being ignorant on mutualism, but is mutualism essentially like a medieval guild-style mercantilisism with common MoP ownership, while ancapism is essentially extreme property rights?

I would wonder though if mutualism, in allowing markets, would tend to issues in regard to production for use. Would things in a market system truly allow for such a form of production to exist? One of the primary issues of capitalism is that there is no regard given to the environment, simply if a demand exists, the market demand must be satisfied. This leads to problems such as overfishing (see Cod populations in New England and Canada, now virtually extinct as one of many examples), deforestation, destructive mining habits, ect. All of these problems I think would be solved in a more controlled economy, yet would mutualism remedy these problems?

Mutualism isn't that bad as it seems. Free market economy doesn't necessarily mean capitalism, there's no parasite higher class. Also, nothing prevents from voluntarily building communities that internally live under communism standarts, that can unite into communist confederations. Mutualism can be used as a bridge to true stateless communism.

No, that's why market socialism is way better than mutualism, because you have a state to regulate the economy when it's necessary.

color of their flag

Mutualism is literally just anarchism. It was anarchism before anarchists decided they needed to abolish currency, the market or provide labor notes, etc. Proudhon was ambivalent towards markets despite often being portrayed as exclusively pro-markets.

It doesn't get brought up a lot, but anarchists have similar issues with the age of consent that an-caps do. But Spangler was especially bad… he turned himself in for exposing himself to children. So yeah he had major issues.

I also want to point out that Spangler is one of the left-rothbardian types who considered an-Capism to be anarchist/socialist. He's clearly wrong. But he's a socialist in name only; ancaps have us beat with the pedophile demographic still.

The best thing about mutualism is that after Marx destroyed Proudhon and he failed his "socialist bank" a really based French anarchist went after him and BTFO him again: libcom.org/library/exchange.

Im sure I'm not going to be the first one to tell you that Marx's critique of Proudhon was really bad.

It was so bad that it was basically the nail Marx put in the coffin of his career as a revolutionary after repeatedly owning him in the IWA, but please do tell us why it's bad, and why Déjacque (another anarchist) blew Proudhon up on virtually the same points.

Welp into the dumpster goes C4SS

Not really. It was for sure influential, but that's not the same thing as being good. And also the things that Marx criticizes Proudhon for are not the same points being made here. I don't know how you got that, aside from they're both criticizing Proudhon so therefore they must be making the same points. One problem is that Marx often attributes beliefs to Proudhon held by other people or just flat out misunderstands what Proudhon is actually saying. It's a really bad critique in terms of engaging with Proudhon's thoughts and responding to them, but hey if it's popular it must be good.

bump to save from Holla Forums spam

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

Read this book, it will explain why market socialism isn't needed and planned economy is the way to go.