Mutualism

[Killer]

Mutualism seems to create problems by dividing communities into rich ones and poorer ones. I agree with Morpheus when he writes "There are a number of problems with mutualism. It is often difficult to make major changes in the economy without negatively affecting many workers. The present economy is organized to produce a considerable amount of crap that wouldn’t be needed in a post-capitalist society and industry can be made more efficient if organized differently. Should the revolution result in a a civil war or the end of a war the economy will need to switch to wartime or peacetime production. In addition markets have many negative side effectives even in mutualism, such as the creation of rich and poor collectives, which should be avoided."

So my question is, can mutualism avoid these problems or does gift economy sound like a better idea?

[jacobhaller]

Yes.

I should read Carson's book. Until then, my studies of history don't show many problems with markets as markets; unions tend to grow stronger, not weaker, without police/army/death squad intervention, networks emerge to bypass cartels, etc.

[Morpheus]

Until then, my studies of history don't show many problems with markets as markets; unions tend to grow stronger, not weaker, without police/army/death squad intervention, networks emerge to bypass cartels, etc.

That's a false comparison. Your'e comparing non-capitalist markets to statism but the question is non-capitalist markets vs. non-market anarchy. Obviously any form of anarchism, including mutualism, is better than statism.

[jacobhaller]

Do non-capitalist markets increase, leave, or reduce social stratification?

My answer was that even non-capitalist elements within capitalist markets, unless suppressed, reduce social stratification; non-capitalist markets would further reduce social stratification. Just let them run long enough (10 years? 15 years? after the revolution) and see what happens.

[Morpheus]

Anarcho-communism wouldn't reduce social stratification, it would eliminate it. Non-capitalist markets only reduce stratification, they don't eliminate it.

[jacobhaller]

If properly implemented ... IMHO communism could eliminate stratification in anarchist communities but could aggravate stratification in mixed communities, while mutualism would tend to reduce stratification in mixed communities as well, largely because of clearer alternative forms of association and clearer ways of disassociation.

[Ardarik]

What do you mean by mixed communities? Sorry for hijacking an old thread but I found this interesting ^^

[Isaac]

... can communism work without strong interpersonel ties?

[jacobhaller]

I'm not sure ... I may have meant:

(A) anarchist communities coexisting with small statist enclaves, as long as the latter remain voluntary.

(B) anarchist communities coexisting with small capitalist enclaves, same conditions.

(G) anarchist communities coexisting with other anarchist communities, using different forms of anarchism.

(D) anarchist communities coexisting with other anarchist communities, using the same forms of anarchism, e.g. between two collectivist communities.

In any case, if one person leaves one community to enter another community, what can that person take? Can we answer that without using mutualist concepts for the interval? If one person opts out of community involvement, but wants to use some community resources, what can that person use? Again, can we answer that without using mutualist concepts? [OK, we can make everything absolutely freely available]

[obliterate_the_state]

I favor a mixed economy of mutualist coops competing in a market and public coops for whater anyone desires to make collective. You could be part of a coop that employs doctors or whatever else. This may lead to full on collectivism- but if so it's the will of the people. I believe in liberty, and I think that people must be free to compete if they wish just as well as not!

[Guest]

Competition means winners and losers, dominated and dominant. I agree that people have to be allowed to exchange the product of their labour as they see fit. If any sort of collectivisation was forced aginst people's wills then it would need hieracrhy and organised force, which would effectivley be a state. I suppose in the absence of private property it would be unlikely to lead to any sort of destitution or to capitalism, as the community would not protect anyone who, for example, tries to claim they own a whole factory, or a house they don't use. But in my view a market system would have to exist within a strong framework of community assemblies and federations so that people can make agreements to prevent the worst effects of an untramelled markets. And things lime healthcare would be best provided by friendly societies and consumer co-operatives, so that everyone can access them.

Sam

[Guest]

A question. Mutualism demands the right of workers to the tools and land that they use, an end to usury, and therefore everyone getting the full product of their labour. So far so good. But would those who cannot work, such as the disabled, be reliant on charity? In a gift economy they would have the same access to goods as everyone else, but if mutualism is to be a viable system, we need to think how this problem could be solved.

[tsihcrana laicos]

Cannot work? what is work?

[obliterate_the_state]

Markets under capitalism show an obvious inequality. But these markets all have a state, property, and even nations far away that will labor for cheap because we fuck the whole world up. These markets rely on obvious monopoly systems. In a market where there are no monopolies on these things people will not have to fear loss of their business/house to a state/bank if it fails. I'm not a mutualist because I don't know if I believe in Mutual banking or not.

This is an argument people use pro-corporations. The problem is that it gives corporations an incentive to produce things cheaply for a harder earning profit and it results in unfair worker treatment. The difference is that smaller businesses don't become a market like large companies do because there is no corporate imperialism like there is under capitalism because all workers are owners and noone is employed in other places by them.

All that will be encouraged by a market to a struggling co-op is to do something different and compete in another part of the market. I'm sure this will mean that there will be a transitional period shortly after revolution(unless it's an economic cooperative revolution like most mutualists endorse) where businesses will often fail because they haven't found their place doing what society is in need of.
I think payment will be fairer due to the more recognition of labor from worker to worker, too. Why should society owe anyone who doesn't put in? And why shouldn't what others put in be rewarded by more than just recognition of the community?

I want to own the fruits of my labor because it was my work, whether it was alot or little, because I wanted to do just that ammount to get it and I did. Noone owes it to me. It's empowering. I can be lazy and live lazy and not make much money. But I can be less lazy and make that much more money because the rewards aren't minimum wage anymore- they're the entire fruits of my labor. And because everyone understands this, everyone is more productive. Unless they really don't want to be. Then they can be as little productive as they want but be able to live accordingly because it's still more fair. But they're not too productive because it's a waste of their time, in both time and labor hours(their currency or trade items), to make things to throw away.

I don't think it is capable under a cooperative market for a market to become monopolized on. If it were it would just be some form of anarcho-collectivism where they'd trade eachother what they needed in communities. Maybe Libertarian Municipalism/Bookchinism.

I can even see community cooperatives for public safety reasons that could have a seal like the organic one that says that they passed a inspection and post the results. Inspections all have to be voluntary, of course,- but they probably would be just to encourage people to use their services. Bribery can't happen to pass inspection- you'd have to bride every single coop member! And every coop member is a member of the community and would want their community to be safe because it means they're safe.

They should never be centralized. There should be many as not to promote the misuse like that of USDA standards not being upheld. If it's the community that runs the coops the people will care.

[Infinite]

... can communism work without strong interpersonel ties?

Does Communism rely on unnaturally close, superficially imposed bonds between people to those who would otherwise be strangers? Not out of artificially imposed alienation due to capitalism (though some of that may exist), but out of the natural order of relations among people? That's the vibe I get, and it comes off kind of cultish. I do share a sense of solidarity with people and think that it's healthy & am for comradery but I sense that Communism goes a bit too far with the 'we're all a big family' thing. And it's a bit overly hostile to the structure of the biological family as well in my opinion. I agree w/the criticism about authoritarian parents but trying to abolish the family altogether rather than encourage more libertarian parenting and using coercion to do so is a reprehensible concept to me. I don't know if that's a widely held position among anarcho-syndicalists and communists but I've seen it advocated enough for me to find it a concern. Also from reading about the Kibbutzim in Israel which i.m.o. sounded like living in a public school basically. People talk about how anarcho-communism is more en-tuned w/the working class but do anarchists really think the majority of working families would want their families split up?

I find myself attracted to the concept of mutualism b/c it seems the most libertarian form of anarchism. But at the same time it's unattractive b/c there never any activism to speak of from the mutualists. I want to support an anarchist movement not just an idea on paper or a computer screen. I'd be willing to help build a mutualist movement but only if there's others who are serious about it and if it's a plausible program for lack of a better term.