Mutualism

Squatter's laws still exist in actual existing statist capitalism - it doesn't prevent land speculation or state protection of vacant properties. You can obviously prove legal ownership of something without having active usage or possession of that thing, and this defines how private property works in capitalism.

Not to mention mutualism predates anarcho-capitalism by a century, so if anything ancap would be a form of mutualism. It's not, though.

""Capital"… in the political field is analogous to "government"… The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."

I'm not even sure why mutualism is treated with respect in leftist circles. It's not that distinguishable from anarcho-capitalism.

...

Why are these things problems if the workers own the factories they use and the market disallows property as investment?

The difference between a democratic and a dictatorial workplace and economy is the difference between a dictatorship of the bourgeoise and dictatorship of the proletariat. It makes a huge difference, since a mutualist society would actually be capable of real democracy, at least to a far greater extent than capitalism. Of course it has many flaws which you already pointed out, but to say that is basically the same as AnCap is completely untrue. Mutualism could well evolve into socialism naturally, and would be useful as an intermediary stage between capitalism and a planned economy.

Mutualism was meant for the early stages of capitalism.
Were in the late late stage.

Idealistic nonsense. Saying that something small scale won't work on a large scale due to arbitrary numbers is peak undialectical. It's the equivalent of saying that just because you can walk from your house to the local 7-11, that doesn't mean you can walk from your house all the way to Canada.

AHAHAHAHAHA fuck off already, neo-feudalist, stop trying to push your bullshit.
No it's not you retard, ayncraps still believe in absentee property rights.

Affinity groups are neither a basis for revolutionary or post-revolutionary organization. Affinity groups work if you're gonna squat a house or two. It doesn't work if you want to organize a railway network.

See, this guy gets it.

That's why I respect marxists at an intellectual level far more than I will anarkiddies. Left-anarchist literature is among the most brazenly shallow, whim-worshiping stuff I've ever read.

If proudhoun was too obsessed with interest.
You could still have loans with interest to fund workers cooperatives.
The thing is that the workers retain the ownership once the loan is paid off.
Still capital would be more scarce than a for profit corporation.
Many of the big cooperatives like mondragon have succumbed to capital in the end.

Attached: 1504757833505.jpg (110x125, 2.89K)

That's because you haven't read it. I recommend suicide.

I see mutualism as an important predecessor to both communism and anarcho-collectivism. The flow of goods is important, and mutualism's aim was effectively to avoid exploitation of labor inherent in capitalism by finding some way to reward the entire value of a person's labor in a transaction, without any of that value being siphoned off by a ruling class.

The issue, of course, is that it still allows people to fall through the cracks. I'm not for wasting resources on the lazy, but I am for offering opportunities and training for people, as well as creating social safety networks that protect the elderly and vulnerable. Proudhon's mutualism was an important step in the labor movement. The next step was taken by everyone from Marx and Engels to Bakunin and Kropotkin.

No it's not, and you're a moron who knows nothing about the intellectual history of either movement. Mutualism was explicitly an attempt to avoid capitalist exploitation, to ensure the total value of labor and goods be transferred between people. Anarcho-Capitalism is completely for that exploitation, and says that market mechanisms will magically solve any injustices because when people have total choice in where they work and what they buy, then everything will be available at an affordable price. They say that a monopoly will inevitably destruct when challenged by competitors without the support of government, ignoring the fact that monopolies recruit the best talent to avoid competition. Anarcho-Capitalism would lead to societies run completely by monopolistic corporations without any democratic mechanisms, which would be absolutely authoritarian, hence why "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron - the "anarcho-" prefix would quickly become meaningless.

Louis Blanc called for the creation of coops with government aid before karl marx even formulated his ideas on socialism.
Louis Blanc is underrated.

Mutualism is capitalism but with co-ops. The market mechanism always leads back to capitalism. Trying to put a 'leftist' spin on it is useless.

Marx also destroyed Proudhon in 1847

corporations are state-created entities, and wouldn't exist in 'ancapistan'