Isn't mutualism liable to abuses of very little variance to those that anarcho-capitalism is vulnerable to?

Isn't mutualism liable to abuses of very little variance to those that anarcho-capitalism is vulnerable to?

t. only read the prelude of Mutualism's wikipedia page

Other urls found in this thread:

themutualist.com/what-is-mutualism/
dpaste.de/QL8k
libcom.org/library/exchange
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Who cares?

Proudhon's position on women's rights hardly have anything to do with what use his economics may still have.

All the replies were fucking retarded. The best way to think of mutualism is a society where everyone produces something, and exchanges it for something they find to be of equal value, thereby no profit. For complex goods, the production would be made by unions that all take equal ownership of those goods. And no, there would not be rent or private property, making accumulation of capital impossible. If you want to know more, read proudhon, or talk to syndicalists(quite a few are mutualists). I swear nobody on this board fucking readsm

why would these coops not compete against one another? if coop A can develop a productive method that allows it to produce more of product X than its competitors at the same cost, everyone will turn to coop A to get product X as they will get more product X in return for their own commodities. this will create superprofits for coop A and allow it to accumulate a ton of capital, which the workers there will then invest in further improvement of productive forces to create even greater market share for their coop, possibly driving its competitors out of business. what prevents this?

Pretty much any anarchist has mutualist tendencies if you talk to them for long enough.

Yes, anarchists being illiterate idiots who don't understand capitalism is an enduring trend.

Yes. Proudhon presents no actual ideas on how his proposed state of affairs is to be achieved and maintained. It's basically idealized capitalism. >>2070704 has the right idea.


What you're proposing is simply making every worker a shareholder. It's still private property.


This.


I don't. I don't think socialism can have commodity production, unlike the many flavors of left-wing capitalists you'll find here.


xd

The fact that coops can't grow. At one point a coop will get so big, that it will no longer be able to sustain its workers, causing chunks of said workers to leave and form their own coop. So in essence it is similar to the idea of the ancap corporate lifecycle, except for the fact that coops are a lot less sustainable than a top down structure.

Explain why this would be the case.

Actually, the more a co-op concentrates capital, the easier it becomes to buy out other co-ops and invest in productivity increases to produce under the SNLT. Markets always lead to consolidation.

And most marxists are actually socdems with some edge. No wonder the left is fucked.

10 people own 10%of a company, that company eventually turns into 100 people who own 1% of the company. A group of those people will eventually become discontent with their meager salaries, leading to them abandoning said coop to form their own.
You can't have consolidation of wealth in a coop, when the percentage of the coop you own is your entire income, and when the revenue of the coop is split among the workers in said coops, unless the ALL agree to consolidate their income.

themutualist.com/what-is-mutualism/ here's an article that explains the different brands of mutualism(not all are anarchist) a bit better than wikipedia. Other than that read carson, marx, proudhon, robert owen, adam smith and Mises.

dpaste.de/QL8k
sick and tired of faggots here thinking that mutualism is capitalism + coops

Which eventually leads to one big coop with every human being a worker-owner, and production directly for use. Which means that Mutualism trends towards communism through its own internal contradictions.

So why oppose it?

Early Mutualists and Proudhon supported a society in which you could only have a stake in a workplace by actually working in it, eg, you could not privately own any economic asset or land, and accumulation of currency could only be used to further your workplace or personal life and belongings. IIRC, Proudhon or some other early mutualist supported community regulation boards to keep these co-ops in check, but I can't really remember and I'm not a Mutualist.

There is a string of revisionist "mutualists" who are literally just ancaps with co-ops who want people to forget this and support their variant of pink tinged capitalism, in which the MoP are privately owned and sold, but by worker consensus rather than businessmen.

Yes, ish. Mutualism is against rent on an individual basis, however in other instances such as land, that land would be leased to you by the comune, and you would be allowed to claim ownership, so long as you utilise it personally.
mutualism doesn't have communist tendencies. In the scenario you proposed, yes there could be a large communal society, except mutualism holds on to the concept of voluntarianism, as in nobody would be forced to be in that comune, and said comune wouldn't control everything about society.

What stops the successful coops who dominate the market from simply forming a labor aristocracy and not extending the same deal to the countless unemployed from the fallen competitor coops?

Holy shit who would've thought, quick, let's have a capitalist revolution!

Mutualism is liable to the abuses of impersonal market forces and value production just like anarcho-capitalism because it is, like "anarcho"-capitalism, capitalism.

libcom.org/library/exchange

coops ≠ mutualism
mutualism is basically anarchist market socialism.