Mutualist History

[Noleaders]

I'm not sure at this point, never really thought about it. I'll get back to you on that. I don't think it'll ultimately be a massive difference, I just find money unwieldy and potentially limiting, and don't think it's needed.

Well it depends how much trading goes on and what type of transaction is being undertaken, ie. small scale transactions between friends its not so big a deal but in a more serious industry being able to work out costs would be a more pressing issue. Also mutual money, being backed by any wealth, is quite different to any money we've had so far and it would probably be quite flexible.

[thelastindividual]

Part of my vision is that people will act to fulfill their own needs rather than current society where people see gaps in the market and fill it in order to get profit, wether this will be enough to eradicate the need for trade to the point where money is irrelevant is debatable

I think a lot of people's views on money and how it works aren't informed by anything other than their own prejudices (CAPITALIST LIES TO KEEP US OPPRESSED!!!!!! etc)

[Francois Tremblay]

To be honest, if a communist found a way to have a fair and rational system of economics without money, I would probably rally to their side.

[Noleaders]

Part of my vision is that people will act to fulfill their own needs rather than current society where people see gaps in the market and fill it in order to get profit, wether this will be enough to eradicate the need for trade to the point where money is irrelevant is debatable

Well for trade to be irrelevant you would have to be making everything you use by yourself, and once (or if) we have the technology to make labour that efficient it would still be less efficient than having everyone own a specialised machine and trading among themselves. I too think people should act to fulfill their own needs but i dont see why that excludes trade if that was the best way to do so.

[Noor]

Mutualism sounds a lot like anarcho-communism, except with money.

What about possession? Mutualism says the workers should own the MoP, while ancom says the community should as far as I know (never read much on ancom).

[shawnpwilbur]

Mutualism sounds a lot like anarcho-communism, except with money.

What about possession? Mutualism says the workers should own the MoP, while ancom says the community should as far as I know (never read much on ancom).

What about occupancy-and-use-based simple property, which is where Proudhon ended up? Mutualism could theoretically work on some scale with a purely barter economy, and thus without money. But mutualism seems like anarcho-communism without the communism, and with an exchange economy--and sometimes with very strong private property in place, however limited by term of occupancy--and those seem like fairly substantive differences.

[AndyMalroes]

Where's Jack? I'd like to see his input on this.

[AndyMalroes]

Fucking Awesome thread, I just want to say as well

[thelastindividual]

To be honest, if a communist found a way to have a fair and rational system of economics without money, I would probably rally to their side.

Yeah but for all intents and purposes you'd just be renaming it

Well for trade to be irrelevant you would have to be making everything you use by yourself, and once (or if) we have the technology to make labour that efficient it would still be less efficient than having everyone own a specialised machine and trading among themselves. I too think people should act to fulfill their own needs but i dont see why that excludes trade if that was the best way to do so.

Jah, well I think one big difference between mutualists and communists/collectivists is how the means of production will be owned. The latter groups aim to completely collectivise the means completely while (I think I'm correct in saying this) the mutualist approach is more one were each worker owns a specific share in the co-operative?

[Noleaders]

Jah, well I think one big difference between mutualists and communists/collectivists is how the means of production will be owned. The latter groups aim to completely collectivise the means completely while (I think I'm correct in saying this) the mutualist approach is more one were each worker owns a specific share in the co-operative?

Your on the right lines but its not the co-operative, its a co-operative, or any connection to the MoP really.
Also completely collectivise
Surely there will be more than one, what if people dont wanna join?

[thelastindividual]

Your on the right lines but its not the co-operative, its a co-operative, or any connection to the MoP really.
Also completely collectivise
Surely there will be more than one, what if people dont wanna join?

They will be dealt with by the voluntary thought police and sent to the voluntary Gulags

[Francois Tremblay]

"Voluntary gulag" makes me think of Scientology and the RPF (look it up if you don't know what it is). Stale bread and beans, can't talk to anyone, hard work, but it's all for my own good! Hut hut hut!

[Noleaders]

Your on the right lines but its not the co-operative, its a co-operative, or any connection to the MoP really.
Also completely collectivise
Surely there will be more than one, what if people dont wanna join?

They will be dealt with by the voluntary thought police and sent to the voluntary Gulags

*boinks the lenninist conspiracy*

[jack]

Where's Jack? I'd like to see his input on this.

Their history is like that of Hoxhaists in the American labor movement, sure they might have been at some important events and such, but they've never played a pivitol role or anything somewhat important beyond 1% of the grunt work.....maybe.

Anyways, these deal with Mutualist history, and also reaffirm my point, even where they were most prevalent they were still irrelavent.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Ar ... ement.html

http://libcom.org/library/cuban-anarchism-1

The book on Cuba even states that a real movement in Cuba didn't really begin until the Communsts/Collectivists/Syndicalists arrived.

[jack]

Oh, and I was ignoring this thread because I didn't want it to turn into a massive Shawn v. Jack debate.