Theory What do you guys think of Mutualist Theory (Anarchist/Socialist)?

[Pandaemonium]

Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought and economic theory that advocates a socialist society based on free markets and usufructs, i.e. occupation and use property norms. One implementation of this system involves the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration. Mutualism is based on a version of the labor theory of value that it uses as its basis for determining economic value. According to mutualist theory, when a worker sells the product of their labor, they ought to receive money, goods, or services in exchange that are equal in economic value, embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility". The product of the worker's labour factors the amount of both mental and physical labour into the price of their product.

While mutualism was popularized by the writings of anarchist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and is mainly associated as an anarchist school of thought and with libertarian socialism, its origins as a type of socialism go back to the 18th-century labour movement in Britain first, then France and finally to the working-class Chartist movement. Mutualists oppose individuals receiving income through loans, investments and rent under capitalist social relations. Although opposed to this type of income, Proudhon expressed that he had never intended "to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." As long as they ensure the worker's right to the full product of their labour, mutualists support markets and property in the product of labour, differentiating between capitalist private property (productive property) and personal property (private property). Mutualists argue for conditional titles to land, whose ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called possession), a type of private property with strong abandonment criteria. This contrasts with the capitalist non-proviso labour theory of property, where an owner maintains a property title more or less until one decides to give or sell it.

As libertarian socialists, mutualists distinguish their market socialism from state socialism and do not advocate state ownership over the means of production. Instead, each person possesses a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labour in the free market. Benjamin Tucker wrote of Proudhon that "though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, he aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few ... by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost". Although similar to the economic doctrines of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists, mutualism favours large industries. Mutualism has been retrospectively characterized sometimes as being a form of individualist anarchism and ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism. Proudhon described the liberty he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property". Some consider mutualism part of free-market anarchism, individualist anarchism and market-oriented left-libertarianism, while others regard it as part of social anarchism."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
@Adûnâi @Betrayed @ElliotRodgerHere @Emba @GriffithIsInnocent @Incelius Savage @kretschmer @MarquisDeSade

 

[Betrayed]

Good concept. I prefer a strong state
Approve

 

[Pandaemonium]

Good concept. I prefer a strong state
Approve

Fair enough, also nice pfp
Generally State Mutual-Socialism would make sense, as it would be a synthesis of collective and individuated social property on behalf of the working and industrious classes

 

[Sennacherib]

What do you guys think of Mutualist Theory (Anarchist/Socialist)?​

Does that shit strip toilets of rights? If so i'm for it.

 

[Betrayed]

Fair enough, also nice pfp
Generally State Mutual-Socialism would make sense, as it would be a synthesis of collective and individuated social property on behalf of the working and industrious classes

 

[ShiiOfTheSPLC]

Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought and economic theory that advocates a socialist society based on free markets and usufructs, i.e. occupation and use property norms. One implementation of this system involves the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration. Mutualism is based on a version of the labor theory of value that it uses as its basis for determining economic value. According to mutualist theory, when a worker sells the product of their labor, they ought to receive money, goods, or services in exchange that are equal in economic value, embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility". The product of the worker's labour factors the amount of both mental and physical labour into the price of their product.

99% of users here don't even know what any of that economic shit means or would entail. I imagine even normies with finance degrees might not fully understand it

The product of the worker's labour factors the amount of both mental and physical labour into the price of their product.

How would this actually be the case in a "free market" economy? Like the financial market value of sweatshop labourers is obviously not aligned with the amount of mental suffering they endure. It comes off like one of those idealistic meme ideologies like syndicalism that are effectively purely theoretical and have never even come close to being seriously implemented

 

[NirvanaFan1988]

why should I care about some faggotic politic?
I just want this fucking world to burn!

 

[Pandaemonium]

bunmp

 

[Pandaemonium]

bunmp

 

[ElTruecel]

Mutualism is not pragmatic and the labor theory of value is Retarded. A society based around the concept would utterly fail

 

[Leaving Hope]

Mutualism is not pragmatic and the labor theory of value is Retarded. A society based around the concept would utterly fail

Societies aren't based around concepts. They're based around material production. There are no societies without physical... Labor.

 

[ElTruecel]

Societies aren't based around concepts. They're based around material production. There are no societies without physical... Labor.

Man you get my point. Obviously I didn’t mean it as a concept but the way they’re handling the material production doesn’t work. Mutualism is just a free market with weird socialist ideas like being anti private property.

 

[Leaving Hope]

Man you get my point. Obviously I didn’t mean it as a concept but the way they’re handling the material production doesn’t work. Mutualism is just a free market with weird socialist ideas like being anti private property.

Mutuaism, from a Marxist perspective, is simply capitalism. Socialism is the product of a natural transformation of society under the intense pressure of final stage capitalism, which we are now entering.

 

[ElTruecel]

Mutuaism, from a Marxist perspective, is simply capitalism.

No it isn’t, the means of production arent privately owned

 

[NoLooksNoLife]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
@Adûnâi @Betrayed @ElliotRodgerHere @Emba @GriffithIsInnocent @Incelius Savage @kretschmer @MarquisDeSade

Ok GrAY

 

[Leaving Hope]

No it isn’t, the means of production arent privately owned

For Marxists, the means of production do not have to be privately owned for a social system to be capitalism. E.g. State capitalism.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Chpt. 3)

www.marxists.org

In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. [4] This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.

If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

 

[ElTruecel]

For Marxists, the means of production do not have to be privately owned for a social system to be capitalism. E.g. State capitalism.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Chpt. 3)

www.marxists.org

In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. [4] This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.

If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

The Marxist definition is irrelevant and is just some excuse to argue semantics. The simple definition of capitalism is simply privately owned means of production accompanied by a free market.

 

[Leaving Hope]

The Marxist definition is irrelevant and is just some excuse to argue semantics. The simple definition of capitalism is simply privately owned means of production accompanied by a free market.

The simple definition is simple for a reason, and if you hew to this understanding you'll never grasp Marxism.

 

[ElTruecel]

The simple definition is simple for a reason, and if you hew to this understanding you'll never grasp Marxism.

What Marxism advocates for is workers to ultimately seize the means of production and have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The end goal would be a fully egalitarian society. However before that there would need to be a transitional period.

 

[Leaving Hope]

What Marxism advocates for is workers to ultimately seize the means of production and have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The end goal would be a fully egalitarian society. However before that there would need to be a transitional period.

Yes but what people don't understand is HOW MARX THINKS WE WILL GET THERE. The conditions Marx says will *force* the working class to revolt are being created... Now. It might still be decades or centuries, but this process has begun and you will monitor it in real time: homes lost, lives destroyed. That process is what you need to understand: immiseration. Focus your effort there.

 

[ElTruecel]

Yes but what people don't understand is HOW MARX THINKS WE WILL GET THERE. The conditions Marx says will *force* the working class to revolt are being created... Now. It might still be decades or centuries, but this process has begun and you will monitor it in real time: homes lost, lives destroyed. That process is what you need to understand: immiseration. Focus your effort there.

We already experienced this during the 20th century though

 

[Leaving Hope]

We already experienced this during the 20th century though

Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba were not undergoing capitalist immiseration. They were precapitalist.

 

[ElTruecel]

Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba were not undergoing capitalist immiseration. They were precapitalist.

So you believe capitalism was only recently implemented then?

 

[Leaving Hope]

So you believe capitalism was only recently implemented then?

In those nations? That's what the Soviet Union and the CCP and the Cuban Communist Party and the Vietnamese Communist Party were doing. Capitalism begins with the State intervening heavily in the market - it was this way in the Enclosure Acts, the theft of German Protestant lands, etc. It has always been thus.

Communism requires a great accumulation, then a stripping of property.

From Marx's German Ideology, 1844.

The German Ideology

The German Ideology

www.marxists.org

This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

 

[ElTruecel]

In those nations?

No in general

That's what the Soviet Union and the CCP and the Cuban Communist Party and the Vietnamese Communist Party were doing. Capitalism begins with the State intervening heavily in the market - it was this way in the Enclosure Acts, the theft of German Protestant lands, etc. It has always been thus.

Huh? Are you saying capitalism = government intervention and by steal do you mean government stealing (which is what Marxism wants abolishment of private property) or the rich stealing it.

Communism requires a great accumulation, then a stripping of property.

From Marx's German Ideology, 1844.

The German Ideology

The German Ideology

www.marxists.org

This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

View attachment 698591

I c

 

[Leaving Hope]

The rich take property from the workers. This immiserates them. Driven to the brink, the workers take property from the bourgeois. This is Marx's theory of Communism. The preconditions for it are starting to develop now.