Anarcho-Mutualism

you can trade labor for labor you idiot… smh

a simple example: you build a wardrobe for me and I suck your dick. idk it can be whatever. But when mutualists refer to trade they refer to labor for labor first, sex is a mutualist act, mutualism is what some species of animals practice too.

The Remora is a mutualist animal, the birds on the backs of deers that eat the fleas on their backs. It's all for themselves in the end but they just happen to be helping out someone else. I don't think something so simple has to be explained any further tbh. You're a moron if you don't get it, it's just a word and it's definition it aint rocket science.

Attached: want-to-form-a-union-on-the-basis-of-self-7641839.png (824x610, 84.24K)

OP is a fag, mutualism is absolutely part of communism, but that's just because communism is really broad.
The idea of mutualism is that this efficient idealized theoretical "free market" can come closer to reality.

How the hell do you do wage labor if the boss has no property which he can use as leverage in negotiating said wage?

1) "free OR OTHERWISE". Are you saying that in a non-free market society without private property, like Communism, there would be no trade, not even communal trade like Decentralized Planned Economies? Because, like you said, you need private property to have trade.

2)How can you not have a free market without private property of the means of production?

What the fuck have you been smoking? I don't know how you'd be able to argue that at all, that's demonstrably false.
Anarcho-collectivism, on the contrary, does have direct relations to communism, as it is theoretically/practically lower-phase communism. Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin was also a dialectican and emphasized the revolutionary necessity of the working class. Proudhon argued that you could just co-op your way into a new society, in a gradualist fashion. He was hilariously naive and this nonsense was debunked in the Paris Commune.

Proudhon is of a different time. Bakunin on the other hand is in serious need of review, with the dead ends of social democracy, Leninism and immediatist communisms dominating the present period.

Mutalists are the big brained centrists of Anarchism

Google Proudhon Capitalistnigger

Mutualism is NAZBOL
marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/1847/jews.htm

Attached: proudhon on jews.jpeg (713x315, 125.2K)

Pretty easily. Workers would set a wage through some sort of council or deliberative mechanism. A cooperative firm still has to turn a profit. How do you think the profit is being extracted?

no. just a spooked racist. reason for that being most europeans around the era were like that even Marx to an extent. That doesn't means anything.

Only the Capitalist Jews are enemies just like are Capitalists or any Heriarchist is.

you're looking at terms that are anarchy but do not need the anarcho- shit behind it tbh.
Just call it Mutualism, Communism, Collectivism. All those are inherently anarchistic forms of organization. As long as there is no hierarchy it is anarchy.

Idk why you're taking Proudhon views as absolute. As if that should be the whole meaning of such a simple concept as Mutualism. Mutualism is biological, you see it in animals & plants. Take that as you will, which is probably as a sectarian retard who wont comprehend it.

I consider mutualists comarades & anarchists myself for obvious reasons but if you wanna be sectarian & hate you do you. Nobody gives a fuck.

Attached: mutualism.png (600x400, 29.04K)

Attached: 1507513934191.jpg (552x543, 35.27K)

Exactly. But Mutualism is not expecting you to exchange them on a market with money.
Trade labor for labor instead that is still perfectly a mutualist action, it falls right under the meaning of the word.

If somebody tells you that exchange with money (a vague representation of one's labor true wroth) is mutualism he is wrong. In mutualism there is no such thing as short end deals. They're mutual deals that benefit both parties in the ways they want, they do such trade because it's truly worth it.

If I were to make you a home/shelter I'm a construction worker, well you're a chan user another worthless memer irl you're unskilled, useless. But lets say you knew how to install solar pannels I got them but I don't know how to make use of them or how to place them efficiently, etc.

I don't know how to do such a thing therefore I propose to you that I want to make you a house if you help me with my solar panel issue to be able to spend the following days with electricity. You would like to have a personal shelter only for you because you're sick of sharing rooms with another individual or sleeping outside, you want privacy to fap to hentai idk, it's worth it for both of our interests which are different. It's not a common interest like in communism, we have our own unique different interests but we agree to do the work we're experienced in for each other because it benefits us both.

Attached: bauarbeit.jpg (3264x2448, 2.61M)

But you're conflating. In common use of language we use "mutualism" to mean the ecological interaction; between species. Therefore when we sometimes talk about the semi-obscure economic theory of Proudhon's mutualism, which contains theories of free market exchange, commodity production, in some cases even defenses of private property, then there is a difference.
Now if you're making the case for using 'mutualism' in the first sense, in regards to ecological interactions, but between humans, then I'd suggest you use of the synonymous and more widely understood word: "cooperation".

By your way of arguing I'd say you'd be more in agreement with the economic perspectives of anti-Leninist left-communists (councilcoms, Situationists, communization theorists) than Proudhon. If it's explicitly ecology you're after, in attempts of integration / wider natural consistency then I've found Bookchin's social ecology to be pretty much directly compatible with the leftcommunist theories. Delezue/Guattari also wrote about "ecosophy", but I haven't read any of that yet.

That's one thing about anarcho-communists I never understood. The end goal of communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society; that is anarchy by anarchist definition. The only problem is that tankies believe we should have a transitionary period of state socialism, while anarchists believe that we should just jump straight to communism.

I don't care either way tbh. As long as we reach communism I think that's all that really matters.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (400x500, 34.87K)

well then I don't give a fuck about Proudhon's mutualism. I give a fuck about mutualism.

Also your way of explaining things as if they were this over-complicated shit my god no dude I'm not left communist anti-leninist. I'm myself thats it, don't label others over and over because you always think politically, incapable of thinking unpolitically. Jesus you must be really fun in parties.

just don't use the "anarcho-" prefix to simple things that don't really need it. you're only speaking like the socially retarded by doing that.

By the way anarchists are right that you can jump straight to communism. But collectively? no. Unrealistic not everybody has the means of autonomy. Besides to stablish a communist society first you need common interests, friends, true friends.

Global communism is reachable with technology eventually it will take centuries. For now if you want to practice it, it will have to be off the grid with close friends of yours. There isn't much else you can do. You can accelerate history revolutions that happen here & there in the world by deciding to participate in them yourself whenever they show up while you practice your very real communism outskirts, in your true home. Fuck with the established power sure but do it so only when you can win pick your fights smartly.

Attached: critique to that kind of anarchist.png (600x600, 45.54K)

HEY!

I'm just saying if you use "mutualism" like this in common speech people not versed in the natural sciences will look at you all confused and lose track of where you're going verbally. YOU MOTHERFUCKER. Cooperation is a synonym and is primarily used when talking about reciprocal interactions between humans anyways, so why not make yourself understood and use that??
BUDDY
Also you quote Junger at me one more fucking time I'm going to track your IP and force you to wear ideological symbols in the form of body-sized, superglued encircled A's and hammer & sickles - UNDERSTOOD?

idgaf

Wage labor can only exist with a boss extracting a worker's labour through the private property of the means of production. In Mutualism there's no wage theft, there's cooperation between workers. For example I do not tell some workers to make a part of a gun and others another part of the gun, and reward them with wages and then selling them on the market; Some workers make a gun together through their specializations in making the different parts, then they sell it on the market and are rewarded with other products or money (depending if the exchange is based on barter or currency)

What don't you get? Communism is stateless, but if someone calls themselves and ancom you can reasonably infer what sort of praxis they endorse/engage in.

And how do you build nuclear power plants with such a ridiculously decentralized economy?

With communism nuclear power as an architectural project would become unnecessary as renewable energy generators would become personal property and distributed for use.

why do you even want those? I'm aware they generate a lot of energy but it's a major fucking risk to the planet to do that sort of shit.

There are things that the human was better off not knowing. Now they're too greedy & prone to fucking up, which they had. Various environmental disasters have happened to nuclear plants, don't even have to mention nuclear weapons.

You do not understand him he is a socially retarded user with power hungry fantasies he wants nuclear. Does not mind the huge repercussions that implies. Renewable energy isn't "badass" enough for him although is the best one for extreme long term survival & autonomy. It's actually the tech that will slowly make everyone go off the grid one day which will start moving the world towards Communism one step at a time.

The problem there is the market tho & currency system. I don't think things can truly be mutual with currency, a physical trade can but currency in the end is just an imaginary game of monopoly.

You as mutualist shouldn't be foolish enough to play on it, or you might get played by them. I understand what you mean tho, for example a remote community in the mountains how does it deals with outsiders? Money governs outsiders not them but if they want a commodity from that outisde it isn't a bad idea to deal with them using their money (their good wage slave points) to later on get something you might need from that outside for example: more solar panels.

Nah, forget it. It's still fucked up it breaks the mutuality so thats not mutualism. I should just call it a simple trade. Yea for sure Capital is what fucks up mutualism & makes it truly undoable.It should be labor for labor I see no other ways. Or labor for satisfaction (you really like that individual you're working for and he/she being satisfied by the work you're doing for him/her is enough for you).

Stirner imo explains a true Mutualism perfectly well with the Union of Egoists.

Attached: Friendship is the Union of Egoists.png (1482x1296, 240.14K)

mutualists are just comrades overall

Bookchin is a slimy Zionist profiting off YPG assets.

Proudhon actually had redeeming qualities.

Bookchin died in 2006

The radical centrist wears these colors for a reason.

Attached: I'm a centrist.png (542x401, 144.56K)

Attached: rule 0.png (493x371, 96.52K)

'with the exception of those individuals married to French women'

So you can get out of exile by getting married? (I'm guessing this is because Jewishness is passed through the mother, so you can de-jew yourself by marrying a different ethnicity? )

navol gang even here?

You can't decentralize everything
You need some centralized projects
Especially if it is more efficient to do so.
The challenge is in organizing such large projects in a decentralized manner.

bump

If you abolish both free trade and private property, who does what and on whos authority produces needed goods?

Capitalist and Communists are two sides of the same coin. They merely support two different fractions of authoritarianism. One (communism) supports forced collectivism; the other (Capitalism) supports absentee property rights and a privatized state in favor of the ruling class.

I'm a market socialist myself, but not specifically a mutualist. I support private property, but workplace democracy and a collectively operated means of production, under a market economy.

Attached: blackstar.jpg (868x521, 37.54K)

you don't understand communism… can't blame you the soviets, americans and everyone misused the fuck out of that word. That misunderstanding started to happen often during and post ww2. conflicts which pretty much molded the cultures we live in now.

Attached: communism.png (1366x395, 33.01K)

ML =/= communism.