[JonathanRoss]

What say ye on Mutualism as an Anarchist school of thought? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
How would such a principle be integrated into a society, or would a brand new society/government have to be created around Mutualism?
I'm just curious to see what you all think about if it could ever possibly work, and what kind of social governance and other political ideologies it would fit with best.

I hope I'm not just spewing a bunch of nonsense here.

Thanks!
Jon

[Melodramatic]

I like Mutualism quite a lot. It appeals to my anarchistic/libertarian tendencies, while being compatible with my leftist view of society. currently reading an interesting bookon the subject.

How would such a principle be integrated into a society, or would a brand new society/government have to be created around Mutualism?

Not sure what you mean by this.

Mutualism is in its core a individualist anarchist ideology, which advocates complete removal of the state, including some of its more subtle (yet critical) forms, which capitalists tend to love (its main clash with anarcho-capitalism).

It also provides a deeper analysis of society which cites the state as the case of exploitation. based on the labor theory of value, they claim that if there was no state a man would get the full value of his labor, a much more valid theory than "charity will fix everything" that standard libertarians spew in my opinion.

I'm just curious to see what you all think about if it could ever possibly work, and what kind of social governance and other political ideologies it would fit with best.

still not sure what your asking. Mutualism is a political ideology...

[JonathanRoss]

Thanks, Melodramatic!
Sorry that I put in some weird, unanswerable questions...
I agree with you, it appeals to my libertarian tendencies as well.
I'll definitely check out that book. Thanks for the link!

Jon

[Melodramatic]

Sorry that I put in some weird, unanswerable questions...

we all do occasionally

I'll definitely check out that book. Thanks for the link!

its a nice book, a bit of a hard read for me though. I feel it assumes I know things I don't, economic-wise. It also has a tendency to repeat itself. I've glimpsed different parts of it before, but I've only fully read the first till now, which deals with the labor theory of value. I suggest you try to understand the basics of the labor theory of value before reading it, it would have saved me some confusion.

[JonathanRoss]

Thanks again! I'm looking into all of that now.

Jon

[SecretSquirrel]

I think you should stop using labels and subtypes of anarchism and instead focus all your efforts on outreach to other liberty-loving individuals so that our movement may grow in influence.

These idiotic labels have been causing anarchists to tear at each other's throats for a hundred years at least, rather than focusing their efforts together.

[Melodramatic]

It is not a matter of labels, SS. It is simply another approach to individualist anarchism. I like with this approach, this does not make me anything but an anarchist who likes with the mutualist approach.

On the more practical side, Mutualism offers a solution to the biggest problem in individualist anarchism, in my opinion, the land and property problem.

[SecretSquirrel]

i've told you this before in more depth on another thread, melo. The statists want us anarchists to be preoccupied with infighting and labels and internal division. Why are you playing into their hand?

[Melodramatic]

The statists want us anarchists to be preoccupied with infighting and labels and internal division.

This is a political theory, SS. Debate, different perspectives, are essential.

Mutualism offers me two things, an analysis on society and a solution to the land problem. There is nothing wrong with people perceiving society differently. When a person asks me, "what of the poor?" and I give him my solution, rather than a solution I believe is insufficient. in the most practical sense there is no difference between our beliefs, in most cases, there is no division.

when the time comes to march, I might even agree to march with anarcho capitalists or syndicalists, even though I believe both are very wrong, in the practical side. the cores of belief are completely anarchist, nothing more nothing less. my prime goal is abolishing the state. there is nothing wrong with people having different perspectives of what will happen later.

The land problem is more complex. while necessity might lead to strange allegiances, there is a very important difference between, say, Anarcho capitalists and Mutualists. This is no petty difference, given the destruction of state, this can become a war. I believe that anarcho capitalists are recreating the state with their beliefs and hurting the people insufferably. Even if we work together, eventually each will have to take a side. I can just hope that the actual destruction of the state will make the choice clearer.

If nothing else, look at it this way, Mutualist theory is the only way to convince the leftists. other theories are understandably insufficient to them. Leftists (real leftists not those liberal pansies) are important to the (metaphorical) revolution, as my personal analysis finds them the least susceptible to the love of status-quo.

[SecretSquirrel]

I'm not an anarcho capitalist. My reasons for hating the state come 100% from my faith and I couldn't care less what happens after it's gone, as long as another state doesn't appear.

Because I just fundamentally, flat-out don't care about what free individuals choose to do with their time and currency with other free individuals, I'm labeled a "capitalist"

SS

[Melodramatic]

I'm not an anarcho capitalist. My reasons for hating the state come 100% from my faith and I couldn't care less what happens after it's gone, as long as another state doesn't appear.

Because I just fundamentally, flat-out don't care about what free individuals choose to do with their time and currency with other free individuals, I'm labeled a "capitalist"

SS

I know, did I mistakenly imply you are?

[Comrade Crow]

I strongly disagree with Mutualism, it's really not all to different from capitalism, so, fuck all that.

[Paradigm]

I'm a fan of mutualism and some of the individualist anarchists influenced by it, though I think Proudhon's understanding of how land rent works is confused, and Henry George's ideas on the subject provide a great supplement to it. I'm interested in the idea of mutual credit, and would like to see more decentralization in banking. I'm not an anarchist, but I think the ideas of Proudhon are valuable and worth reading.

[SecretSquirrel]

Anarchism is easy to understand. It is the philosophy of voluntary action by all.

If your hypothetical framework would enable societies to coerce people (including those not willing to be part of them) then it is not anarchist

If you have a bunch of people voluntarily belonging to a communist group practicing communism then its perfectly fine under anarchism. But if they start forcing neighboring people to be communist, or persecute their own who want no part of communism, then it immediately stops being anarchist.

You can, of course, replace "communism" with any other system like capitalism or monarchism or whatnot.

[SolarCross]

In some places in the UK there are voluntary groups praciticing a kind of mutulism along side the regular economy. Its called LETS as in Local Exchange Trading System. link to LETS on wiki.

[mikema63]

Looks a lot like electronic money to me.

[SolarCross]

Looks a lot like electronic money to me.

So? Most lets are paper based for what difference it makes. But regardless of whether the system is electronic or paper based a LETS is still a voluntary, labour based currency created by the users rather than some gang of usurist monopolists.

[mikema63]

I thought you wanted a gift economy, you even fought with me saying that money wouldn't exist.

Its just an alternative free market money you've seen developed here, not to start a fight or anything.

[SolarCross]

I thought you wanted a gift economy, you even fought with me saying that money wouldn't exist.

Its just an alternative free market money you've seen developed here, not to start a fight or anything.

A gift economy is my preferance. The thread is about mutualism so it seemed reasonable to mention LETS which I think qualifies as a kind of mutualism already being practiced. The gift economy is the most advanced at least in a spiritual sense but as an anarchist you can be pragmatic and tactical in finding your way to anarchy and it is always wise to explore alternatives.

[mikema63]

Well I like any form of currency that the government has trouble competing with, big fan of bitcoins.