Opinion of "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy" by Ben Carson?

hello cambyses! i've not read the book, but i did look it up on amazon (so that makes me a semi-expert - jk ).

most of the people who hang out on the libcom forums are not mutualists, so my guess is if we had read the book, we'd not be fans.

If you spent enough time on here like I did, you would know that most lib-commies identify themselves as either anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-communists. The two by the way very much overlap and are not incompatible. Like for example, the majority of anarcho-syndicalists are anarcho-communist.

that's what i was gonna say. if you want to learn more about these anarchist tendencies, check out the reading recommendations here:
http://libcom.org/forums/general/reading-list-newbies-13072013

Libertarian Communists

Go for the intro guides if you're looking get a feel of the politics for the site:

http://libcom.org/library/libcom-introductory-guide

There's nothing better than writing a well-thought out response than expressing your disagreement with a down click. As for my post, what I wrote is completely accurate. I don't know what could possibly be wrong with it.

I think you mean Kevin Carson, the idealist who tries to "think away" the exploitative aspects of property market relations. Free market capitalists call him a "Marxist" and actual communists call him a capitalist. This is because his ideas are stuck in fantasy land. It's wishy washy idealism. I could write a book concerning space flight to a different dimension but it wouldn't be grounded in reality. The only half way positive thing about Kevin Carson is he agrees with the labor theory of value but from there he goes into some very strange form of "free market" theory. Like space flight into a different dimension it can only exist in his head and cannot be applicable in the real world.

As communists most of us are materialists and use a materialist method in theory, in the way we foment theory into action. It helps us see what's actually possible and what are strange unrealistic impossible scenarios. Take for instance the idealist right wing capitalist theory of the "non aggression principle". In theory it sounds great, no aggression, whats wrong with that? Nothing, until, via the idealist method, one combines it with property market relations. By applying the materialist method we come to understand property based market relations absolutely depend on aggression/coercion. A working class must be created in order for there to be a capitalist class. In reality this process was called dispossession. It was facilitated at the end of a bloody sword.

In order to keep the worlds majority working class dispossessed of any other means of production coercion via the state is necessary. Carson doesn't realize this. Any sort of "free market" advocate won't acknowledge the necessity of dispossession/the state in order for market relations to exist. What free market advocates, including Carson, have tried to do is create some theoretical capitalist world where all property based market relations are voluntary. Oh let me count the ways in which this is impossible.

First, perpetual market expansion (profit) is necessary for any industrial property based market system. It has to extend globally like the arms of an octopus. Into ever nook and cranny of the globe. Well, not everyone wants to play along with property based market relations so coercion, in reality, is applied via military intervention in order to set the stage for property based market relations. This is why Hayek praised Pinochet as a fine example of what was necessary in order to build the foundations of "liberty" (property based market relations). We're talking Friedrich Hayek here. A moment of sublime honesty.

Second is production under market conditions opens the door for crisis. Economists, free market included, come up with their theories under some imaginary foundation of perfect competition. In realistic capitalist economic conditions without state intervention, as we see it now, capitalism would have crashed and burned a long time ago. They, in their silly idealist analysis, blame crisis solely on state intervention. Carson is no different. Sorry Carson but without the capitalist state and war the property based market system would have been gone in the 1930's (but it could have never existed at all without state intervention).

Another reason a state is needed for property based market relations is to mitigate the harsh realities which arise from a society based on profit/competition. The "free market" has never and never will "tend to all". A good book that focused on this point is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29

I don't really feel like taking this any further. At the end of the day Carson is an idealist who has formulated a lot of unworkable theories in his head. Thats all.