Mutualism

Petty-bourg reactionism that looks back to the "good old days" before big industry crowded out the independent producer. Not to say Proudhon wasn't an important figure, but as I understand it he was more of a stepping stone from utopianism to scientific socialism than anything.

Yeah that's why it caused Fascism with them complaining about MUH CRONY CAPITALISM.

coops become privatized when they get big enough
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demutualization

Market is a shit control mechanism for the economy, because it operates on little information and is reactive.

Attached: voucher.png (1380x633, 312.52K)

Besides Anarcho-Communism, Mutualism is the future COMPADRES. Deal with it.

Attached: Mutualist stirner.jpg (1200x562, 89.14K)

Socialists should be pushing to make this illegal honestly. Mutual enterprises should also receive tax incentives ideally.

A mutualist economy would be forced to either adopt centralized economic planning in some form or become capitalist again. It just isn't a workable way to manage markets.

master b8

Might I ask you what, if any role, you think markets should have in a socialist society? We've seen that planned economies can be quite effective overall, but also be ineffective at things like consumer goods and the logistical side. Is that inherent to planned economies in your view, or are those more administrative issues that we can solve? Open question really, for anyone.

For me, the market controlled by workers is more important than immediate collectivization. Of course, we must be careful that markets become a capitalist institution, but we need trade and currencies to help all developing countries and make each country self-sustaining.

What's the deal with banking in mutualism? I don't have the slightest clue what that's about, can you enlighten me?

Private property is outlawed in Mutualism though.

God damn i hate this board. Nothing but circlejerk over marxism leninism that was a utter failure.

Attached: polImage.jpeg (750x1045, 150.81K)

The only "bank" is one big central powerhouse that acts less like a bank and more of a workers credit union. The loans they give out cost just enough to cover the cost of administration fees (so no interest rate). However Mutualists, as Anarchists technically, believe human life should never be relegated to market forces, so they still believe in a strong social safety net to catch those that fall. Towards the end of his life, Proudhon suggested a consumption tax as the way to cover social services.

I wouldn't mind mutualism as a way to move towards FALGSC.

elaborate, orange ancap

...

pic related

Attached: not-an-argument-57b7f21381b05.jpeg (567x565, 40.03K)

So if there's practically no interest rates, everyone automatically borrows as much as they can?

You'd have to prevent revisionists getting into the mutualist government and allowing privatizations which may be inevitable as long as the cooperatives are forced to participate in a market economy.

Conversely, there are co-ops which choose to downsize specifically in order to prevent that from happening. IIRC, Motion Twin downsized when the extra employees started making them more hierarchical and now they've implemented a 15-employee limit.

That being said, I also agree with

Ok. It whould help if someone could give an explenation how mutualism is defined and how it is different from ancrap or libertarian socialism.
It´s relatively easy to discribe their core features.
libertarian socialism:
ayncrap:
The ownly things/features I know (or belive to know) about mutualism are:
Whould be cool if some actual mutualist could explain this.

Attached: brainlet.png (255x198, 5.53K)

proudhon was a cuck who advocated paying your rent on time. FUCK HIM AND HIS FAMILY

How is Mutualism different from syndicalism, anarcho-communism, or libertarian socialism? And how are these things different from each other? And why don't I care?

it's shit

it's closer to ancap than it is to ancom.

basically they're ancaps who like squatting, cooperatives and mutual credit.

Bumping because I want to hear some actual arguments from people who read more than the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. BTW that article is a little biased towards the more "individualist" and market-centered current of Mutualism, mainly from Benjamin Tucker.

Honestly, I think it's a fair compromise between individualism and collectivism. As a worker of a co-op myself, I find it very interesting. I can't get my head around some things though, like how well would it scale in a large society like a country. Also, how would housing actually work?

It's good.

Mutualism is anarchist, it doesn't want countries. But for size: voluntary mutually consenting federations.

A person can have a house. More than one person can have a house. (married couple as an example.) People can choose to build apartment buildings and live in apartments next to each other. It's not complicated.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM
Markets will inherently lead to inequality, and eventually to a reappearance of capitalism. The only real way I can see mutualism surviving is if it had a strong state to redistribute the profits of any co-op that makes more profit than average, which begs the question why even have a market and not a planned economy with democratic management at the workplace level instead.
t. Statist syndicalist

Mutualists believe in "occupancy and use" property instead of private property. If the workers own the means of production, there is no profit, only higher wages (which Cockshott also takes notice).
Also, Mutualism is more like an ethic philosophy than a specific market economy. The latter is often attributed to Tucker.

Nice utopia you have there

As if anarchist societies didn't collapse within months

If it's beneficial. Dogs are a prime example. They evolved with humans.

Attached: gay.jpg (1200x886, 162.49K)

The only and possibly best possible role mutualist structures could play in a socialist society would be as a parallel alternative to parts of both the educational, medical and economic systems for special cases.
Basically very enhanced apprenticeships with both a volunteering and wage-earning aspect , but no capital accumulation.
And its real purpose of course would be experimental social psychology for aspergers and all that other shit, find those crazy people early, give them a crazier mentor and instead of rote bullshit have them write compilers together or whatever he likes while he gets his physical labour and his ideological guidance and clears his mind from idealist spooks like greed and human rights and so on, and even if he never goes to a factory or office he can still do useful shit from his little magic factory in the forest where economics acquires a Spinozean completeness and they can live fulfilling lives as little happy knots in the greater scheme, make a lot of money too because some of them seem to really pine for that, it's just antisocial behaviour but maybe society can listen too and they can compromise.
We have to be honest to/with ourselves, see the links and start using biopolitics and penal psychiatry for the people, Quaker Brezhnevism with Montessorian characteristics for the 21st century

Attached: 10885087_1592751177626225_5719265527015923079_n.jpg (640x360, 31.3K)

Its what communism was supposed to be but Marx had to sperg out.

months days
FIFY

lol Marx was literally 100% right retard. Capital is an 800 page proof on the contradictions of markets, and that includes Market Socialism.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (207x243, 9.91K)

Attached: 1472860660468s.jpg (250x241, 7.96K)

Attached: 155b4a2d084c1f58e47d59f77982b03aede074e97c0733f1d0407934d137b73b.jpg (900x900, 80.22K)

no private property though, yes still commodity production, but without private property. So, like the soviet union then..

Attached: 2173621837618273.jpg (993x1023, 40.5K)

mmmkay but the question is how to go from markets to not markets

so far all actually existing solutions have worked with the retention of markets while everything else is changed to facilitate the destruction of markets.

Dont be an idealist. Be a materialist

Well what we could do is use cybernetics to allocate resources as needed to specific sectors of the economy on demand. Then we could have like an online service where you could order shit like amazon but with it being democratically controlled. Its also not like amazon is its own planned economy or anything… it is The first step would be shifting from commodity production to producing what people actually truly need.

This is just a starting point though and I would need to think about it more. Cockshott is a big influence on how I would personally set up a functional decentralized planned economy. The way its set up with "muh competition" and competing to develop the same exact tech they could of done if they collaborated is a waste of labor power and I would like to end that way of production entirely.

I've read Tans, fuck i've even exchanged emails with Cockshott he lives in my city.

He does not describe how you go from one to the other, just how the other would work.

Going from one to the other is of paramount concern

based
Honestly, I really don't know the answer to that. Capitalists would find the idea of switching away from commodity production as their end (which it will be) and they wont respond to it kindly. Unless it gains a fuck ton of popular support by the mass majority of the population than it wont be pushed through "peacefully".

other than that, I agree that getting the economy to actually switch over is probably a harder question than "how will it run when switched?"

so… SO..

a mutualistic/market socialist society could potentially be a solution, a way to have markets in the interim but have those markets under greater control by the proletariat, even understanding that markets themselves will dictate the choices those proletariat in control of the markets will create, but accepting that unless you have global socialism, even if you had abolished commodity production to an extent in a certain area, your economy would still be affected by the market forces of the capitalist economy, although would have greater scope to mitigate these forces.. and (not yourself) but the others claiming it is some crazy idea to have market socialism are not really engaging in a proper discussion but are simply referring to dogma to feel good

The main reason I normally stay away from market socialism especially now is because we have 12 years to act on climate change before we will create some really serious shit that I don't think markets are capable of handling. Sure the economy would be effected by global capitalist markets unless… UNLESS… you take out its biggest player (the US) not by destroying it but by having a revolution there or some other nation with developed weapons.

This is exactly the thing i'm afraid of. If we keep chasing profits in the market driven system it will still cause economic collapse.

Yeah but we kind of don't have time to play by their rules when we have to clean up the mess they made before shit hits the fans.

It would be a good idea for a transitionary phase if we actually had the time to implement it. I never really viewed market socialism as crazy because I always thought it was a good step in the right direction. However I wouldn't call others peoples criticism of the idea dogmatic given the current situation were in. No offense.

Unless your talking about a market socialism with south korean charicteristics (5 year plans in a market economy) then I dont think we reasonably have the time for this to be an effective transitionary phase into Marxist socialism

Attached: d99b20dc90c0e165f73ff2c3d981a85cc0873c2542d884e1aaeb5df94f463d46.png (645x773, 11.39K)

the time question is true of any theory really, the fact remains no socialist experiemnt has ever been able to go straight to a planned economy, other than some form of mixed market socialism, the only other real option is to attempt to go instantly to a planned economy, but even "instantly" will mean at least ten years of mixed market and planned economy while you create the planned economy and phase out the markets.

+ to have an economy where every aspect is planned, you have to control all the resources required to do this, which basically no country on earth does, which necessitates either 1) total global socialism with a lockstep socialist international or 2) a very large alliance of socialist nations controlling these specific resources, all singing from the same hymnsheet and being part of the plan.

Sense global socialism is needed to actually have an entirely planned economy, wouldn't it be best to be extremely aggressive when it comes to getting others to switch over? Like for example china rn has the ability to cut of ties with the the world when it comes to manufacturing goods, this of course would probably lead to global economic collapse which would be the perfect time to host a revolution in countries that are needed for global socialism to occur. Like for example you would need the US, and virtually all of Europe to become socialist in that period which would require global cooperation. Basically I'm suggesting number 2 because if you get the major imperialist powers out of the way there should be no stopping global socialism from happening so strategy is key here.

Comrade, stahp!

read a book, honestly

They can't become something they already are.
[source: my ass]

...

Even China still imports a lot of raw materials. This is the problem. It is highly unlikely you will have several simultaneous lockstep revolutions, so while the others build up you need an intermediary system. What system? And why is traditional state capitalism so much better than state capitalism with co-operatives?

Yes he does, he has several works published on it. Its far from what most here would propose fpr transition, taking a more old school social democratic approach.

Has anyone here read Kevin Carson? I'm surprised he hasn't been mentioned yet.

Hang yourself and go back to Reddit in no particular order you stupid fucking chaponigger. You also understand nothing about mutualism.
Mutualism uses free markets in conjunction with democratic ownership of the MoP.

Lel, he actually thinks we have this much time or any time at all for that matter. Near term human extinction is already locked in. It's done.

Feel free to kill yourself while I use it to convince people to become socialists. Climate change can be used to actually attain global socialism if we use it correctly.

Attached: ben.jpg (306x271, 56.31K)

he doesn't say "they're bad" though retard. even by their own ideal standards they are unsustainable. it relies on infinite demand, which humans simply don't have. it can last not forever, something will give.

I meant in towards a new socialism specifically he doesn't. He lives in Scotland where old school social demagogery is perhaps a more feasible option

Read Hegel, or just look at what a revolution is historically, you don't just do a socialism.

You think the Dutch merchants were chasing their sugar profits like "we're making sure the French revolution and the textile industry in the Uk kick off so we can have factories and cars and shit guys"

Proudhon just didn't have the stuff to properly define property, social relations of production and what laid at the heart of commodity production. He was a liberal, he believed in Ideas first, even whilst occasionally stumbling into self contradicting correct takes because he wasn't blind.

There's no revolutionary movement that's going to unite around mutualism. It's an idea that had it's time 200 years ago