REDpill me on Mutualism

Attached: Mutalism.png (620x413, 26.48K)

Other urls found in this thread:

It's better than Titoism.

Read Bakunin and also Peter Kopotkin. None of the bullshit. Mutualism doesn't even has anything to do with currency either unless it's mutually agreed upon. But it's better if it's not otherwise trickery might be involved.

Mutualism can be UoE. Anything non hierarchical can be UoE (Union of Egoists) aka simple friendship. Capitalism isn't UoE.

Attached: equality.jpg (564x364, 57.79K)

I was that before I was a ancom. I would totally love to do a revolution with you user.

This, I was a confused titoist with left-libertarian views myself before I knew about mutualism.

why no Anarcho-Titoism?

Its shit because you keep the core principles of the capitalist mode of production for profit in place. Buying and selling has a profit incentive, and with noone to enforce the "no renting" capitalism will naturally creep in faster than a pedophile in an Irish orphanage, even if you ignore the fact that your mode of production itself is inherently contradictory.

Mutualists want to abolish wage labour, private ownership of the means of production and the extraction of surplus value by the owning class. How the fuck do they keep the core principles of the capitalist mode of production in place? Selling and buying for things for your own benefit is not inherently capitalist.

Growth for the sake of growth still remains. Competition between cooperatives will still result in crisis etc

you forgot it can actually be voluntary and anarchistic unlike most flags on this board


Producing capital for capitals sake is inherently capitalistic

Something becomes capital only when it is used by wage labour.

I dont agree.

And even if you were right, the competition between cooperatives and incentive to automate to grow production without increasing the amount of workers inevitably leaves one coop going bankrupt, creating a class of non-owners who can do nothing but sell their labour to survive. The only thing you need then is one coop who is willing to exploit them by either directly hiring them, or cover the fact that they are extracting their surplus value by outsourcing production to a coop of owningless people and paying them less than the worth of their labour. This is incentivised because of the competition that you keep in place, because any company that exploits these people will cut costs and is able to undercut the competition, even if they do it secretly. As such, the only winning strategy (because you dont want to go under as a coop) is to exploit the non-owning class of workers, creating a renewed cycle of capitalism with wage labour, private property of the means of production and extraction of surplus value.

Competition is a prisoners dilemma and a zero sum game due to automation. Even if you start out with no private property as soon as one coop chooses to fuck over the others, as is incentivised, everybody has to. Its the same reason why "nice" bosses under capitalism aren't the norm, its not competitive. If you start out with an exactly balanced competitive market of coops with equal size and members, all it takes is one upsetting of the balance to tip the scales, wherein the coop that now has the advantage can produce cheaper, sell more, make more money to invest in expansion, further increase their advantage, while at the same time the competition loses market share, loses income, have to slow their growth, creating an exponentially bigger rift between them, until at the end the smaller coop cannot make enough money to provide food and shelter for their members, having to fire members, who will have to sell their labour to wherever will buy it.

If a cooperative fires one of it’s workers, he can just join another cooperative which will provide him with a lower income.

And why would another coop hire him? Hiring another worker implies that they have a need for more labour power, which might happen on individual levels, but overall in society, the labour requirement is dropping due to development in means of production. If a coop implements automation, their total work requirement drops, it doesn't rise. This idea that "you can just get another job" is the same idiocy of assuming an infinite growth economy with an infinite growth consumption. Its also exactly the same argument as "just find a job you fucking prole".

There is no reason to believe that the number of jobs will grow, in fact, the number of jobs will shrink over time. And lastly, there is no incentive for your "other cooperative" to treat him as an equal. Like I explained before, they are incentivised with the thread of losing their means of living to exploit this unemployed poor lad, either directly by hiring as a wage labourer, or by using some loopholes to justify it such as "internships" or "outsourcing".

By producing for exchange rather than use. The cycle of money/capital remains in place. A market allows wealth to accumulate for whomever plays the market to their advantage. Once wealth starts to accumulate property can be re-established because the wealthy can afford to pay people to enforce property. Over time this is where a market will trend because instead of planning production, people left it up to ~market forces~ which are open to manipulation. On the other hand, socialized production with a market would eliminate a lot of alienation and put workers in a better position to conceptualize socialism/communism. The danger is that false consciousness remains and that property could re-emerge if care is not taken.

Attached: RDW 'the market'.webm (1440x1080, 6.46M)

Because he can increase the productivity of this coop?

Automation doesn’t actually reduce the level of employment in the long term:

Production for exchange coincides with production for use when Walrasian equilibrium is reached due to market clearing.

Hiring an extra person only makes sense if the total productivity added is larger than the avarage productivity per worker that they had before.

I am sorry to ask, but do you even understand basic economics? Like, at all? Like I already explained if you had bothered to read at all, saying that "oh there will just be new jobs" assumes an infinite growth in consumption, which is physically impossible, and infinite economic growth, which is also physically impossible. All you are doing is demonstrating a appalling lack of understanding of reality, of leftist economics, and showing yourself to be chin deep in capitalist dogma, from excusing the faults in your "not"-capitalist system with capitalist talking points about infinite growth and "there is always demand for more and more stuff, make more and grow and grow and grow to infinite" and litterally citing a motherfucking bloomberg article.

I am not going to take anything you say serious anymore after this, mate. Take some time to reflect on the fact that you are trying to prop up your system with the same lies that capitalists use to prop up theirs.

Either you are actually an economics student (judging by your usage of things like walrasian equilibrium), in which case, hey, kudos for coming here, but do realise that both that bloomberg article and the equilibrium are based on things that do not exist in real life or by the very nature of capitalism, cannot exist, or you just believed everything told to you by capitalists, in which case I do wonder why you would support mutualism (other than moralistic reasons). Lets tackle your next post shall we?

Walrasian equilibrium is litterally impossible and can never be reached.
>Competitive equilibrium (also called: Walrasian equilibrium)[1] is the traditional concept of economic equilibrium, appropriate for the analysis of commodity markets with flexible prices and many traders, and serving as the benchmark of efficiency in economic analysis. It relies crucially on the assumption of a competitive environment where each trader decides upon a quantity that is so small compared to the total quantity traded in the market that their individual transactions have no influence on the prices.
If you know anything about capitalism, it is that scale increased efficiency, and that monopolies naturally form, because monopolies are the best at making money. They will form either due to outcompeting the competition, or through mergers. Merging corporations is always a 100% gain for the shareholders, because they can cut costs in employees, increase the market share, decrease competition (which increases price) all the while not losing their shares, they will keep the same value in shares and the same total power.
Secondly, even if monopolies did not form, this fantasy relies on assuming many many many traders trading in quantities so small that they do not affect price, while their sum does affect price. This is a mathematical impossibility. For a sum of something to have an effect, all its parts must have an effect, no matter how small.
Thirdly, like all "perfect capitalism" models, this model relies on all parties, the infinite total of the infinitely tiny traders, to have perfect information. This is also impossible. Perfect information does not exist, it cannot exist, and markets discourage' perfect information from being even remotely approached. Information asymmetry is incredibly beneficial to the party with more information, and as such it is in the interest of any trader to keep the other parties as much in the dark as they can.

Lastly, your short reply did not address the core issue of RDW poster, where he pointed out that accumulation of wealth in certain parts of society allow these people to hire their own private police force and defy the will of the rest of society, allowing them to enforce property claims and wage slavery. Accumulation of capital and wealth, the goal in market economies, inherently reproduce capitalism. The production of commodities, the production for exchange rather than for use, inherently has within it the seed of capitalism.

Honestly mate, I have trouble believing you exist. I can't remember someone who so deeply believes in capitalist economic theories, and knows a good amount of it, even quoting outright capitalist newspapers, who is a mutualist on leftypol. Out of pure curiousity, may I ask if you are an economics student? And if not, what the hell are you, because I am honestly more amazed and curious than I am angry at the fact that you believe those things.

Attached: muffled screaming.png (550x826, 984.85K)

Soooo… Mutualists basically are the succdems of anarchism?

Attached: 430.jpeg (699x485, 69.29K)

basically. It's better than capitalism but eventually falls into the same pitfalls

I'd still take mutualism over actually-existing-capitalism anyday.

Anarcho-mutualism is just one of may ways for individuals to interact with each other in an anarchist society.

no it's not. do you have any friends? you probably don't which is why you except everyone to "trade/deal" with you so you get the short end of such "deal" or something. Must be shit to never have had a gf huh.

Pretty good as an intermediate stage, to keep the US from invading while still maintaining trade with the outside world and increasing productive capacity.

mutualism doesn't means you have to trade or do deals with the united states for fucks sake. mutualism is what the word means, mutualism. Stop being retards. It occurs in wild animal relationships. It's simply when one organism benefits from the other and vice versa.

Now shut the fuck up all of you and stop comparing it to Capitalism, you're retards.