Is mutualism supportive of free markets or regulated markets? Most people seem to say free markets, but Proudhon seemed to believe that regulation by the community is a good thing.
Mutualism is about a regulated market. It can easily be identified in this quote:
Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Mutualism
If the market was unregulated the interest could be anything demand and supply would dictate. But through regulation the interest will be kept at a minimum to finance labour cost and other minimal expenses associated with running a bank.
Mutualism is about a free market. It can easily be identified in this quote:
Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives. To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.
Because a free market is a market free from state intervention
What you have to realise is that a free market and a regulated market is not a negation of each other (contrary to what capitalists wants you to believe in)
Proudhon's original mutualism should not be confused with Tucker's individualist anarchism.
The former saw the need for regulation by an agricultural-industrial federation, the former did not.
The former opposed wage-labour and argued for workers associations, the former did not.
I discuss this in the introduction to Property is Theft!.
While Proudhon's position is logical and libertarian, Tucker's is basically wishful thinking. There is no way the worker could receive the full product of his labour if he toils for a boss. Nor does this fit into Tucker's own ideas of "occupancy and use" (these logically point to associated labour as Proudhon argued). I discuss all this here.
So we need to remember what kind of mutualism is being discussed. Some are better than others, some are more logically libertarian than others.
Markets are markets - "free", regulated, or otherwise - and they have no place in a revolutionary theory or in a post-capitalist future.
Because revolutions all pan out as predicted in the books, eh?
It is almost certain that a future revolution will see a multiple of different economic forms develop -- whether we like it or not. Even after decades of communist-anarchist organising and propaganda in Spain, markets existed in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. We may dislike that, but it happened. I doubt any future revolt will be any different.
The question we should be asking, rather than dismissing with a wave the problems facing a revolt, is how can we best work to ensure any markets that do exist get transcended sooner rather than later.
Indeed we cannot predict exactly how a revolutionary transformation might start out and it's initially sporadic and geographically dispersed nature might well see experimentation in hybrid forms of collectivised production and distribution. The essential point is for organised pro-revolutionaries to promote the rapid expansion of such a movement (outside of any state control and across national borders) by subverting attempts to stabilise the process into separate and competing collective 'enterprises', encouraging the planning of useful production for common use and it's distribution according to needs without recourse to monetary or other forms of private property exchange. In that struggle libertarian communists would be in conflict with any ideologically based 'mutualists'. Failure to win that battle would surely see a reversion to some form of what might be seen, at best, as a form of 'self-managed' capitalism.
Proudhon's original mutualism should not be confused with Tucker's individualist anarchism.
The former saw the need for regulation by an agricultural-industrial federation, the former did not.
The former opposed wage-labour and argued for workers associations, the former did not.
I discuss this in the introduction to Property is Theft!.
While Proudhon's position is logical and libertarian, Tucker's is basically wishful thinking. There is no way the worker could receive the full product of his labour if he toils for a boss. Nor does this fit into Tucker's own ideas of "occupancy and use" (these logically point to associated labour as Proudhon argued). I discuss all this here.
So we need to remember what kind of mutualism is being discussed. Some are better than others, some are more logically libertarian than others.
That's the impression I was getting. I tend to agree quite a bit with Proudhon and not so much with Tucker. Is mutualism collectivist, individualist, or a bit of both? Is there anywhere to get decent information on mutualism? A lot of people on websites like this seem to be unwilling to discuss non-communist forms of socialism.
Tucker's is basically wishful thinking. There is no way the worker could receive the full product of his labour if he toils for a boss
Well it depends what do u mean by a boss? Someone who direct the labour or someone who exclusively owns the means of production? Im quite sure Tucker was against exclusion from the means of production.
According to this link he was against exclusiveness.
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG5
Well lets say there is a factory with 4 people involved. In capitalism there would be 3 workers and a capitalist who owns the means of production. The income from the labour would be equivalent to 400 gold. Then the boss gets eq. 200 gold and each worker gets eq. 66 2/3 gold.
Then a revolution happens. If the capitalist was a passive capitalist he would be thrown out. Each worker would then get eq. 400/3 = 133 1/3 gold. If the capitalist was a labouring capitalist he would continue his presence in the factory as a worker. Now everyone gets the same, so that would be eq. 400/4 = 100 gold. How is this impossible according to Tuckers logic?
It probably makes most sense to say that Proudhon rejected the notion of capitalist markets as unregulated since his critiques of capitalism and governmentalism were hardly separable. His transitional mutual-credit proposals weren't an instance of regulating the market, but of organizing in opposition to its tendencies. For workers in need of a cheap circulating medium, nothing but reasonable self-interest was necessary to make free credit attractive, provided that some reasonable level of security could also be provided to back the notes. (It isn't clear that the Paris workers would have needed a particularly "hard" currency, anyway.)
In terms of "after the revolution," a full-blown mutualist economy would presumably be self-regulating. Proudhon's particular understanding of the nature of capitalism and governmentalism wouldn't have left room for much "regulation by the community," if by that we mean putting collective interests above individual interests. His model was pretty consistently one of balancing those interests as much as possible. In the end, Proudhon summarized the only "social system" he could endorse in the abstract as roughly "equality among individuals + attention to the effects of collective force." That is, I suppose, a sort of preemptive "regulation," since it excludes pretty much every other form that could be used to establish hierarchies.
Well it depends what do u mean by a boss? Someone who direct the labour or someone who exclusively owns the means of production? Im quite sure Tucker was against exclusion from the means of production.
According to this link he was against exclusiveness.
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG5
Thanks for referencing my own work back at me -- I know what I argued and you misunderstand it. There is a contradiction in Tucker's ideas and he was not against wage-labour. He thought that his free-market system would make it non-exploitative. I discuss all this here:
Then a revolution happens. If the capitalist was a passive capitalist he would be thrown out. Each worker would then get eq. 400/3 = 133 1/3 gold. If the capitalist was a labouring capitalist he would continue his presence in the factory as a worker. Now everyone gets the same, so that would be eq. 400/4 = 100 gold. How is this impossible according to Tuckers logic?
Tucker was against expropriation but anyway, there is a contradiction in Tucker's ideas. He should have been in favour of "occupancy and use" as regards workplaces and so, like Proudhon, favour socialisation and associationism. He did not -- he thought that wage-labour could be non-exploitative, which suggests a superficial understanding of Proudhon's theory (at the very least).
Mutualism is about a
Mutualism is about a regulated market. It can easily be identified in this quote:
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Mutualism
If the market was unregulated the interest could be anything demand and supply would dictate. But through regulation the interest will be kept at a minimum to finance labour cost and other minimal expenses associated with running a bank.
Mutualism is about a free market. It can easily be identified in this quote:
Because a free market is a market free from state intervention
What you have to realise is that a free market and a regulated market is not a negation of each other (contrary to what capitalists wants you to believe in)
The thing is, thought, it
The thing is, thought, it doesn't matter.
Markets are markets - "free", regulated, or otherwise - and they have no place in a revolutionary theory or in a post-capitalist future.
There are different kinds of
There are different kinds of mutualism.
Proudhon's original mutualism should not be confused with Tucker's individualist anarchism.
The former saw the need for regulation by an agricultural-industrial federation, the former did not.
The former opposed wage-labour and argued for workers associations, the former did not.
I discuss this in the introduction to Property is Theft!.
While Proudhon's position is logical and libertarian, Tucker's is basically wishful thinking. There is no way the worker could receive the full product of his labour if he toils for a boss. Nor does this fit into Tucker's own ideas of "occupancy and use" (these logically point to associated labour as Proudhon argued). I discuss all this here.
So we need to remember what kind of mutualism is being discussed. Some are better than others, some are more logically libertarian than others.
Chilli Sauce wrote: The thing
Chilli Sauce
Because revolutions all pan out as predicted in the books, eh?
It is almost certain that a future revolution will see a multiple of different economic forms develop -- whether we like it or not. Even after decades of communist-anarchist organising and propaganda in Spain, markets existed in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. We may dislike that, but it happened. I doubt any future revolt will be any different.
The question we should be asking, rather than dismissing with a wave the problems facing a revolt, is how can we best work to ensure any markets that do exist get transcended sooner rather than later.
Indeed we cannot predict
Indeed we cannot predict exactly how a revolutionary transformation might start out and it's initially sporadic and geographically dispersed nature might well see experimentation in hybrid forms of collectivised production and distribution. The essential point is for organised pro-revolutionaries to promote the rapid expansion of such a movement (outside of any state control and across national borders) by subverting attempts to stabilise the process into separate and competing collective 'enterprises', encouraging the planning of useful production for common use and it's distribution according to needs without recourse to monetary or other forms of private property exchange. In that struggle libertarian communists would be in conflict with any ideologically based 'mutualists'. Failure to win that battle would surely see a reversion to some form of what might be seen, at best, as a form of 'self-managed' capitalism.
Anarcho wrote: There are
Anarcho
That's the impression I was getting. I tend to agree quite a bit with Proudhon and not so much with Tucker. Is mutualism collectivist, individualist, or a bit of both? Is there anywhere to get decent information on mutualism? A lot of people on websites like this seem to be unwilling to discuss non-communist forms of socialism.
Anarcho wrote: Tucker's is
Anarcho
Well it depends what do u mean by a boss? Someone who direct the labour or someone who exclusively owns the means of production? Im quite sure Tucker was against exclusion from the means of production.
According to this link he was against exclusiveness.
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG5
Well lets say there is a factory with 4 people involved. In capitalism there would be 3 workers and a capitalist who owns the means of production. The income from the labour would be equivalent to 400 gold. Then the boss gets eq. 200 gold and each worker gets eq. 66 2/3 gold.
Then a revolution happens. If the capitalist was a passive capitalist he would be thrown out. Each worker would then get eq. 400/3 = 133 1/3 gold. If the capitalist was a labouring capitalist he would continue his presence in the factory as a worker. Now everyone gets the same, so that would be eq. 400/4 = 100 gold. How is this impossible according to Tuckers logic?
It probably makes most sense
It probably makes most sense to say that Proudhon rejected the notion of capitalist markets as unregulated since his critiques of capitalism and governmentalism were hardly separable. His transitional mutual-credit proposals weren't an instance of regulating the market, but of organizing in opposition to its tendencies. For workers in need of a cheap circulating medium, nothing but reasonable self-interest was necessary to make free credit attractive, provided that some reasonable level of security could also be provided to back the notes. (It isn't clear that the Paris workers would have needed a particularly "hard" currency, anyway.)
In terms of "after the revolution," a full-blown mutualist economy would presumably be self-regulating. Proudhon's particular understanding of the nature of capitalism and governmentalism wouldn't have left room for much "regulation by the community," if by that we mean putting collective interests above individual interests. His model was pretty consistently one of balancing those interests as much as possible. In the end, Proudhon summarized the only "social system" he could endorse in the abstract as roughly "equality among individuals + attention to the effects of collective force." That is, I suppose, a sort of preemptive "regulation," since it excludes pretty much every other form that could be used to establish hierarchies.
Gulai Polye wrote: Well it
Gulai Polye
Thanks for referencing my own work back at me -- I know what I argued and you misunderstand it. There is a contradiction in Tucker's ideas and he was not against wage-labour. He thought that his free-market system would make it non-exploitative. I discuss all this here:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secG4.html
Tucker was against expropriation but anyway, there is a contradiction in Tucker's ideas. He should have been in favour of "occupancy and use" as regards workplaces and so, like Proudhon, favour socialisation and associationism. He did not -- he thought that wage-labour could be non-exploitative, which suggests a superficial understanding of Proudhon's theory (at the very least).
Quote: Thanks for referencing
That's pretty funny!