Mutualist History

[Noleaders]

So jack, since numbers are what defines a theories significance, are you ready to scrap your anarchism? Surely you can see the gaping holes in this argument. Within the various schools of socialism its been the statists that have had the most relevancy, by a massive difference, since anarchists, other than a couple of failed revolutions and establish a fringe movement thats mocked by the mainstream, have done very little.

Since when did numbers make right anyway?

[jack]

So jack, since numbers are what defines a theories significance, are you ready to scrap your anarchism? Surely you can see the gaping holes in this argument. Within the various schools of socialism its been the statists that have had the most relevancy, by a massive difference, since anarchists, other than a couple of failed revolutions and establish a fringe movement thats mocked by the mainstream, have done very little.

Since when did numbers make right anyway?

I didn't say that, actions define a theory's signifigance (many times this goes with numbers, but not explicitly). Syndicalism obviously wouldn't have significance if syndiacalists didn't agitate and create unions, or work in other union struggles. Mutualism isn't significant because there has been little action on it, if there was more agitation, mutual aid societies, Mutualist businesses etc, Mutualism would be more significant.

[Noleaders]

Again, anarchists have a couple of failed revolutions under their belt and have created a movement thats almost universally scorned. What kind of action is this? Far less significant than controlling the second superpower for most of a century i imagine so again, are you ready to give up anarchism?

Mutualism isn't significant because there has been little action on it

Considering it only just re-entered the movement isnt that to be expected?

mutual aid societies

Have existed in large numbers comprising of people not even interested in mutualism, they dont anymore because of state action making them impractical if not illegal.

Mutualist businesses

From david ellermans "the democratic firm":

After a century of unionism in America, only about 15 per cent of the nonagricultural workforce is unionized and that percentage is declining. In only a decade and a half, ESOPs have spread to cover about 10 per cent of the workforce and that percentage is climbing. Clearly something signifi¬cant is happening.

Also there's the japanese model (significant to cover a country and be considered a "model") which is much more worker oriented than western economies and nowadays there are more examples of worker self management (atleast partially) than there were a century ago, possibly a sign of an evolution towards mutualist business?

Oh and insurance, or pooling risks, is a kinda mutualist idea, id argue thats a fairly significant industry.

True there has been little agitation, we were dormant for the best part of the 20th century, but that will be on the increase if the movement continues growing. As will all the above.

[jack]

Again, anarchists have a couple of failed revolutions under their belt and have created a movement thats almost universally scorned. What kind of action is this? Far less significant than controlling the second superpower for most of a century i imagine so again, are you ready to give up anarchism?

Cool story, bro, we were less significant than Leninists from the 30's to the 90's, by alot. However, we are more significant than them in some countries now (Spain, Greece, France etc) and they are more significant than us in other countries (Mali, Russia, Venezuala etc).

Considering it only just re-entered the movement isnt that to be expected?

'Kay, my point still stands, it just re-entering only reaffirms my position.

Have existed in large numbers comprising of people not even interested in mutualism, they dont anymore because of state action making them impractical if not illegal.+ other crap like that

You're doing it again....

I'm speaking about Mutualism as an ideology, saying it's the natural way of doing things, or is in practice by people who don't know what it is, is stupid. Remember the whole "it's like Ying and Yang maaaan" fiasco?

Oh and insurance, or pooling risks, is a kinda mutualist idea, id argue thats a fairly significant industry.

Lol, the insurance industry exploits people's suffering, not something I'd want to claim as Mutualism in practice.

True there has been little agitation, we were dormant for the best part of the 20th century, but that will be on the increase if the movement continues growing. As will all the above.

Okay, but my thesis is that Mutualism has been irrelavent, that's not attacking it, it's just giving a reason.

[Francois Tremblay]

Oh, more shit-flinging. This fucking board...

[Yarrow]

oh, more shit-flinging. these fucking posters...

[Zazaban]

I'm not getting this logic, how does the historical or current significance of an idea affect its value?

[Noleaders]

Cool story, bro, we were less significant than Leninists from the 30's to the 90's, by alot. However, we are more significant than them in some countries now (Spain, Greece, France etc) and they are more significant than us in other countries (Mali, Russia, Venezuala etc).

Awesome, still pales in comparision to the amount of action thats been put into state socialism. Pales in comparison to the amount of action put into capitalism and general statism to. The labour movement nowadays is pretty irrelevant to everyone outside that dwindling 15% and anarchism is only a small fraction of that, a fraction that has had very limited practical success. However i still hold its a relevant theory because it deals with the problems people face. Saying something is irrelevant because it hasnt been put into practice is absurd because every theory at some point was at some point still in the theoretical stage (and its a completely false statement about mutualism, but nevermind).

'Kay, my point still stands, it just re-entering only reaffirms my position.

Cool, you accept its a pretty weak critique then because now that we have a growing movement were becoming relevant again.

You're doing it again....

I'm speaking about Mutualism as an ideology, saying it's the natural way of doing things, or is in practice by people who don't know what it is, is stupid. Remember the whole "it's like Ying and Yang maaaan" fiasco?

No Jack your doing it again. Whats really stupid is saying a theory is irrelevant because its practiced by ordinary people as opposed to committed idealogues. You claimed mutualism is irrelevant because no one acts on it, i gave you evidence of mutualist practice in ordinary people's lives, how much more relevant does it have to be jack? Are you seriously suggesting that a theory that had nothing to do with reality would be more relevant than one that was simply because the former had more diehards working towards it?
Or do we only get to join the club after we have failed revolution?

Lol, the insurance industry exploits people's suffering, not something I'd want to claim as Mutualism in practice.

The food industry profits off people's hunger, still a pretty relevant service. Just like insurance is. The exploitation that happens is present in most aspects of our society and insurance does serve some useful functions, hence the qualifier "pooling of risks".

Okay, but my thesis is that Mutualism has been irrelavent, that's not attacking it, it's just giving a reason.

Lets say mutualism has been irrelevant, that says nothing about its relevance now. If this was even an argument against mutualism is would be circular.

"There arent many mutualists because its irrelevant, because there arent many of them."

Now are we done with this sectarian nonsense?

[jack]

Awesome, still pales in comparision to the amount of action thats been put into state socialism.

Cool....Still doesn't change my point.

Pales in comparison to the amount of action put into capitalism and general statism to. The labour movement nowadays is pretty irrelevant to everyone outside that dwindling 15% and anarchism is only a small fraction of that, a fraction that has had very limited practical success.

Your attack on and rejection of the labor movement, and blatant first worldism shows your right wing side.

However i still hold its a relevant theory because it deals with the problems people face. Saying something is irrelevant because it hasnt been put into practice is absurd because every theory at some point was at some point still in the theoretical stage (and its a completely false statement about mutualism, but nevermind).

Like slamming my head into a fucking wall, I didn't say it's irrelavent because it has never been put into practice. It's irrelavent either way because there's never been action for it beyond a few petit bourgeois establishments, maybe 50 total, all of which went out of business.

Cool, you accept its a pretty weak critique then because now that we have a growing movement were becoming relevant again.

A growing movement of middle class teenagers and petit bourgeois, irrelavent to the working class.

No Jack your doing it again. Whats really stupid is saying a theory is irrelevant because its practiced by ordinary people as opposed to committed idealogues. You claimed mutualism is irrelevant because no one acts on it, i gave you evidence of mutualist practice in ordinary people's lives, how much more relevant does it have to be jack? Are you seriously suggesting that a theory that had nothing to do with reality would be more relevant than one that was simply because the former had more diehards working towards it?
Or do we only get to join the club after we have failed revolution?

So you're justifying Mutualism having relavence, because it is (supposedly) being practiced by people who don't even know they're doing it? That's stupid. A movement isn't relavent because of that, there's no mass mutualist movement of people who are working in cooperatives, they're just people who favor working in cooperatives and don't subscribe to your economic or social system or act for it.

The food industry profits off people's hunger, still a pretty relevant service. Just like insurance is. The exploitation that happens is present in most aspects of our society and insurance does serve some useful functions, hence the qualifier "pooling of risks".

DID I SAY INSURANCE WAS IRRELAVENT!?!?! STOP TWISTING MY SHIT.

The food industry is bad too, you market fundies advocate profiting off of the hunger of others, thank you for giving me another reason to call you anti-working class.

Lets say mutualism has been irrelevant, that says nothing about its relevance now. If this was even an argument against mutualism is would be circular.

Okay, where's the great Mutualist movement? I've never seen one outside of the internet.

[Noleaders]

Cool....Still doesn't change my point.

Right, so do you think state socialism, capitalism and statism in general are more relevant theories then? Or do you accept that a theories relevance is determined by how it deals with the problems people face, not how much its been put into practice?

Your attack on and rejection of the labor movement

What?

and blatant first worldism

Again, what?

Like slamming my head into a fucking wall, I didn't say it's irrelavent because it has never been put into practice. It's irrelavent either way because there's never been action for it beyond a few petit bourgeois establishments, maybe 50 total, all of which went out of business.

Just like there has never been action for communism other than some failed revolutions?
The thing is this is incorrect and you know it, the only reason you are able to maintain this idea is because you believe that to practice a theory requires knowing all about it so whenever i give you an example of mutualist practice in real life you say "thats not mutualist because they dont call themselves mutualist". So then if a group of people got together and decided to share all their stuff yet had never heard of marx or kropotkin they wouldnt be communist?
Also 50 or more, that all went out of business?
Actually like i said in just a few years over 10% of the american workforce is in an ESOP and these regularly outcompete non ESOP firms, as have experiments in worker self management or "liberal capitalism" as its sometimes called.

Maybe you need to stop slamming your head against walls jack, its clearly impairing your logic.

A growing movement of middle class teenagers and petit bourgeois, irrelavent to the working class.

Incorrect.

So you're justifying Mutualism having relavence, because it is (supposedly) being practiced by people who don't even know they're doing it? That's stupid. A movement isn't relavent because of that, there's no mass mutualist movement of people who are working in cooperatives, they're just people who favor working in cooperatives and don't subscribe to your economic or social system or act for it.

No, im justifying mutualism having relevance because people put it into practice, know full well what they're doing, just dont have any idea what they are doing happens to have been theorised about (or maybe they do they just dont call it mutualism) ie. it has a different name to them.
To demonstrate how absurd your being by saying this makes it irrelevant, would you adamently maintain that a box of cereal was in fact a loaf of bread because someone wrote bread rather than cereal on the front of it?

DID I SAY INSURANCE WAS IRRELAVENT!?!?! STOP TWISTING MY SHIT.

Oh dear, someone cant handle internet debates....

I said that insurance is a kinda mutualist idea, you attacked that on the grounds that the insurance industry exploits people therefore my claim that the idea of insurance having mutualist qualities was actually a blow against mutualism. I responded by saying sure its exploitative now, like most things, but that doesnt mean its a bad idea in fact its quite beneficial which apparently you agree with, thus bringing us back to where we started.

Red herring much?

The food industry is bad too, you market fundies advocate profiting off of the hunger of others, thank you for giving me another reason to call you anti-working class.

Market fundies? Gimme a break...

Ok, mutualism is against profit in the form of returns on capital and in a mutualist world the returns would be on labour instead. It will also be very difficult to charge more than cost in a mutualist world because if someone did the profit margins would attract competitors until there was no more profit left.
During the brief amount of time where someone is making some entrepeneurial profit its because something is in high demand and low supply which allows people to get away with charging a high price for it. This high price encourages people to start producing more of it which drives the price down. So whats actually happening is people provide things people need and get rewarded for doing so. This isnt a zero sum game, both parties are better off than they were before (granted when one side is using force its quite different) so its basically a form of mutual aid, albeit a more individualistic form. All the high price is doing is stopping people using something thats in low supply and encouraging others to make more of it.
In capitalism this is exploitative because the above is a long drawn out process that never properly finishes but in mutualism the period of entrepeneurial profit would be much shorter.

Okay, where's the great Mutualist movement? I've never seen one outside of the internet.

The co-operative movement? The WIR bank? All the stuff thats been mentioned so far?
Or does all that not count cos they use a different name?

[Francois Tremblay]

Why do you keep arguing with a retard? I've put jack on ignore a long time ago.

He doesn't know shit about what he's arguing against. If he doesn't even know that mutualism is against profit, what input could he possibly have on the topic?

He is a little dog yapping at its superiors.

[jack]

Right, so do you think state socialism, capitalism and statism in general are more relevant theories then? Or do you accept that a theories relevance is determined by how it deals with the problems people face, not how much its been put into practice?

Putting words in my mouth again, I never denied they are more relavent than anarchists.

Just like there has never been action for communism other than some failed revolutions?

For starters, a revolution is alot fucking harder, requires alot more people, and is alot more dangerous than simply starting a business. Secondly, you ignore all the organizing, the labor struggles, the armed struggles, the repression, the assasinations, the street fights, and everything else sacraficed or done in the name of Communism. People fight for Libertarian Communism, people have died for it, noone has ever died by setting up a business, or fighting for Mutualism at all.

The thing is this is incorrect and you know it, the only reason you are able to maintain this idea is because you believe that to practice a theory requires knowing all about it so whenever i give you an example of mutualist practice in real life you say "thats not mutualist because they dont call themselves mutualist".

It may be practicing pseudo-Mutualism, maybe, but that doesn't make them part of some Mutualist movement, or make them into Mutualists. It's pointless to claim them as part of your movement, I don't do the same for community organizations even though they are practicing a communist concept. Nor do I do the same for all unions.

So then if a group of people got together and decided to share all their stuff yet had never heard of marx or kropotkin they wouldnt be communist?

They may be, but I wouldn't claim them as part of the communist movement or making strides towards Communism.

Also 50 or more, that all went out of business?
Actually like i said in just a few years over 10% of the american workforce is in an ESOP and these regularly outcompete non ESOP firms, as have experiments in worker self management or "liberal capitalism" as its sometimes called.

See above.

No, im justifying mutualism having relevance because people put it into practice, know full well what they're doing, just dont have any idea what they are doing happens to have been theorised about (or maybe they do they just dont call it mutualism) ie. it has a different name to them.

k

Doesn't make them part of the Mutualist movement.

Oh dear, someone cant handle internet debates....

Sorry I hate it that half your posts twist my arguements?

I said that insurance is a kinda mutualist idea, you attacked that on the grounds that the insurance industry exploits people therefore my claim that the idea of insurance having mutualist qualities was actually a blow against mutualism. I responded by saying sure its exploitative now, like most things, but that doesnt mean its a bad idea in fact its quite beneficial which apparently you agree with, thus bringing us back to where we started.

It's still profiting off of the sufferings of others, I fail to see how the insurance industry will be any different. If I gain money through inheritance and/or my own work (because you don't oppose inheritance), I would have more capital (inb4 ranting, I'm just using the term out of convenience) with which to start an insurance company, which I would own and profit from and would be more secure for people to put money into. Therefore, I would be practicing a capitalist form of business by profiting off of the possible sufferings of others.

Ok, mutualism is against profit in the form of returns on capital and in a mutualist world the returns would be on labour instead. It will also be very difficult to charge more than cost in a mutualist world because if someone did the profit margins would attract competitors until there was no more profit left.

Alrighty then, now you're getting into semantics, I merely used profit as shorthand for "money you make by the sale of something you produce", so deal with it so this doesn't divulge into semantics. It still doesn't change the fact that you can make money off of the hunger, suffering, and other misfortunes of people.

The co-operative movement? The WIR bank? All the stuff thats been mentioned so far?
Or does all that not count cos they use a different name?

Once again, it does matter that they use a different name because:

A) They don't advocate the abolishion of the state
B) You can't count them as part of your "movement" if their ideologies may be completely different
C) Most people who work in coops aren't die hard cooperativists.

[AndyMalroes]

Why do you keep arguing with a retard? I've put jack on ignore a long time ago.

He doesn't know shit about what he's arguing against. If he doesn't even know that mutualism is against profit, what input could he possibly have on the topic?

He is a little dog yapping at its superiors.

I don't mind him, I thought he was a dick at the start, but that was mainly because he seemed elitist, I like a lot of his opinions on shit. (Even if I am a damn whitie living a petit-bourgeoisie lifestyle.)

[Noleaders]

Putting words in my mouth again, I never denied they are more relavent than anarchists.

Putting words in your mouth? I asked you a question, how could that possibly have involved putting words in your mouth?
Glad to see we are back to square one though, with you accepting my origional premise and this being the second little red herring you've taken us on.

So if state socialism is more relevant, yet is clearly a horrible ideology, does that make relevance (as you define it) a meaningless concept for evaluating an ideology?

For starters, a revolution is alot fucking harder, requires alot more people, and is alot more dangerous than simply starting a business. Secondly, you ignore all the organizing, the labor struggles, the armed struggles, the repression, the assasinations, the street fights, and everything else sacraficed or done in the name of Communism. People fight for Libertarian Communism, people have died for it, noone has ever died by setting up a business, or fighting for Mutualism at all.

Of course, i never denied this, but i fail to see how that counters my point. It wasnt so much that the revolutions failed but that there has only been a couple of them attempted. Also the anarchist movement is very small, compared to the amount of people not acting for anarchism there are only a few doing so. I dont think this makes it irrelevant because it still confronts the problems people face, but according to your logic thats not as important as their being action on it but (as you say) that means state socialism is more relevant even though the vast majority of dictatorships tend to pay lip service to it.
Second mutualism has always been taking a different route strategically, one thats tried to avoid fighting for now, but that doesnt mean there was never any struggles, for example proudhon getting put in prison for trying to start his bank of exchange (which had thousands of members, so yes there has been committed mutualist action).

It may be practicing pseudo-Mutualism, maybe, but that doesn't make them part of some Mutualist movement, or make them into Mutualists. It's pointless to claim them as part of your movement, I don't do the same for community organizations even though they are practicing a communist concept. Nor do I do the same for all unions.

I didnt claim they were a mutualist movement. I actually said our relevance lies in the fact that our practices are picked up by those outside the movement because that indicates our ideas clearly are relevant to them.

They may be, but I wouldn't claim them as part of the communist movement or making strides towards Communism.

But if lots of people started doing this, would you say thats an indication that the ideology of communism is relevant to their needs?

k

Doesn't make them part of the Mutualist movement.

A) i didnt say it did, i said it made our ideas relevant to them (cos why else would they be practicing them) B) This is an awfully platformist approach to take, does nothing have relevance until it has an official manifesto?

Sorry I hate it that half your posts twist my arguements?

Like saying i was against the labour movement.....

But im not twisting your arguments, im showing you logical conclusions of the premises you take. Its not my fault that upsets you.

It's still profiting off of the sufferings of others, I fail to see how the insurance industry will be any different. If I gain money through inheritance and/or my own work (because you don't oppose inheritance), I would have more capital (inb4 ranting, I'm just using the term out of convenience) with which to start an insurance company, which I would own and profit from and would be more secure for people to put money into. Therefore, I would be practicing a capitalist form of business by profiting off of the possible sufferings of others.

It will be different because there wont be market concentration so people will have lots of choice, all at lower prices, so bargaining power will be shifted towards consumers rather than the insurance companies. I dont see this as profiting of the suffering of others, i see two people (or groups of people) both profiting from an exchange. I dont see anything wrong in someone being rewarded for a useful service they provided.
Your using loaded terminology here, your argument is a lot weaker without it.

Alrighty then, now you're getting into semantics, I merely used profit as shorthand for "money you make by the sale of something you produce", so deal with it so this doesn't divulge into semantics. It still doesn't change the fact that you can make money off of the hunger, suffering, and other misfortunes of people.

First this isnt semantics, returns on labour would mean a very different world. Second you ignored the bit about cost price. Third you dont make money off the suffering of others, you make money by removing the suffering of others.

A) They don't advocate the abolishion of the state

They dont, but there are other aspects to mutualism than abolishing the state and this is generally something people dont advocate and im looking at how mutualist practice has been adopted by ordinary people.

B) You can't count them as part of your "movement" if their ideologies may be completely different

I didnt say they were part of our movement, though i still hold that the difference is in name only, i said they were practicing our ideas.

C) Most people who work in coops aren't die hard cooperativists.

And if you remember correctly i never claimed this and actually claimed our relevance came from the fact that people outside diehard idealogues adopt our ideas.

[Noleaders]

It will be different because there wont be market concentration so people will have lots of choice, all at lower prices, so bargaining power will be shifted towards consumers rather than the insurance companies.

I should expand on this a bit. The average person would have a higher income, the insurance companies would be selling at cost making at the most only short term profits in the case of being the first to innovate and the insurance industry would work like its meant to - people pooling risk.