While I did make a thread asking the same question a few minutes ago, I feel my question were not answered properly. The closest I got was a British guy comparing it to grabbing willies.
I ask because, even after trying to understand it online, I feel I still don't get it.
So I ask again, what is Mutualism and why do I never seem to hear about it?
Something between ancom and ancap I think
Businessmen of the world unite!
Its when you grab each others willies
...
??
kinda this
It would be an individualist and for-profit kind of society, but with some socialist elements mixed in. The general idea is that if more wealth is handled in the lower classes(rather than all or none), then both upper and lower classes will mutually benefit and everyone will be wealthier as a whole.
I think elements of this already exist today (like franchises for instance)
>tfw too smart to be a mutualist
this, while anarcho-communists say individual property is theft and all resources need to be shared with the community and anarcho-capitilists say individual property rights are final and a totally free market would solve everything, anarcho-mutualists say only property gotten through exploitation (eg not paying your workers enough when they cant go elsewhere, getting buddy buddy with the state to pass favorable laws and bailouts, having land that was originally stolen) is immoral and things that usually take a corporation, state or extremely wealthy individual to function like national parks, environmental protection, banks, welfare, big business, ect would be handled by people willingly donating to their community to run together which they say would stop people being able to get super rich and cause what they see as most of the problems in society, kind of like a co-op business but for all of societies issues
Ancap already solves those problems.
Also
>not paying your workers enough
So not giving people enough money to satisfy the leftist mob means I can be stolen from now?
Basically an optimistic view of the Mad Max universe.
Mutualism is a slight twist on anarcho-collectivism.
Anarcho-collectivism the means of production are owned by the community but controlled by the workers, so there is no market, there is currency though in the form of labor certificates. Mutualism is the same setup but the workers also own the means of production so there is a market.
Kolping?
Also Sup Forums basically ignores anarcho-collectivism even though anarchist Spain was anarcho-collectivist and the only modern successful (though limited in time by the war) anarchist country. Anarcho-collectivism also solves most of the issues caused by ancaps and ancoms being so far out on the extreme.
What's funny is the anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-communist insane vision for a utopia is basically really close to the resting state of an anarcho-collectivist society, it just has checks in place to prevent it from turning into an ancap or ancom dystopia.
The two most important being the simultaneous protection of property rights and the protection of labor rights.
Anarchist Spain was a capitalist society where the workers stole the capital from the rich people.
Read what you just said... you contradict yourself. You might as well say that it was a communist society with capital and property.
Pretty much. It's market socialism. I don't agree with mutualist economics, but Proudhon was fucking based. Too bad his modern followers are such faggots
It was nothing near to communism. It provides absolutely no evidence for communism working.
They had prices, wages, profits, and money
Hmm, I think I understand it better now. Mutualism (or anarcho-collectivism) is where people willingly donate time and money to running public functions, while still maintaining private ownership in some capacity.
Still, with how much I hear about anarcho-capitalism/communism and egoism on this board, I wonder why I haven't heard of Mutualism more, given it has the same general flag design as the others.
I decided a while ago that I'll never take any variation of this flag seriously.
cant meme it like spooks
This. Pretty much every anarchist ideology is a meme ideology at its core.
that's not exactly it. let's start with a fundamental question. should there be property? let's assume the answer is yes. who should own it then? well, my couch, I own that, but the nuclear reactor, let's say society as a whole collectively owns that. so we have an owner, but a business/machinery/means of production has an owner and an operator. so who operates it? well, it's a fucking nuclear reactor, so the town drunk probably shouldn't be allowed in. so let's allow the workers with the skill to properly operate it to collectively organize and control it.
now what is this business's operating model? this is the split between mutualism and anarcho-collectivism. mutualists essentially believe every group of nuclear scientists operating a reactor should compete in a free market. anarcho-collectivists think every nuclear scientist should be part of one big co-op that makes up the one giant co-op that is society.
>who should own my couch
Who-ever paid for it
You can rent 'your' couch, but you wouldn't own it unless you bought it
>who should own the nuclear reactor
Who-ever paid for it
'Society' doesn't go around paying for things. Only people pay for things.
If society owns something you're going to have to explain how it paid for it considering it is really a fiction. Or who paid for it if not 'society'
So, individual property exists, society owns the means of production, and their should be a free market. Do I have it right now?
right but you're now just a few ancap memes away from recreational nukes. if society as a whole owns all the important property violating the NAP by blowing up a highway or dam etc becomes a crime against all of society and easy to deal with. you also avoid the communist meme with an actual meritocratic economy.
yup. also labor certificates. fiat money or gold is instead replaced with labor certificates. 1 hour of work =/= 1 hour of labor certificates, instead labor is valued at a holistic consideration of how much the individual adds value. there may or may not be a built in degradation over time factor to labor certificates to encourage consistent spending and control inflation.
Huh, WHY ARENT YOU ENGLISH AND FINISH KEKFUCKS DEFENDING YOUR COUNTRY?
In Ireland right now, we have people driving around "making people like magic" poof.
You deserve to be removed from the earth in the upcoming mutually assured destruction.
I don't see why people blowing up their own highway or their own dam is a big problem
>actual meritocracy
Where are the resources for this coming from?
You're basically saying society will voluntarily provide for the poor out of the profits of labour under your system but not anarcho-capitalism
we're ancaps and live in ancapistan and I don't like you so I buy up all the highways leading into your village and bomb them and no supplies can get in so you and your people starve to death because you dissed my nephew one time.
>resources
labor certificates. take a base value of 1 hour of work and use a formula based on education, experience, previous value generated, negatively correlated skill sets, probably a lot of variables i'm not an economist but it's more meritocratic than determining someone's pay largely off of how charismatic they can be during a short interview. i'm overpaid in my industry cause I interview well. it's dumb
...
>le what if someone buys all the food in the world
>some shitty system I just made up works better than bosses who are hired to establish merit and know their industries
>The closest I got was a British guy comparing it to grabbing willies
OP... that's it.
What are you on about? The anarchist section of Spain was a shithole and couldn't even stay alive if it wasn't supported by the Republicans.
It's not voluntarism.
People can own property and rent its use. Jesus Christ.
My understanding is that it's sort of like minarchism except with a mutual bank that gives out low interest loans and Georgist land laws.
Thanks for posting in this thread everyone. It was quite the educational experience.
>missing out the qualification that they can't go elsewhere
typical trickster capitalist
How can society as a whole own things collectively as private property, one may ask. It's not that complicated. The corporate model already handles collective ownership decently well, it's called the stock market. Collective ownership is just another word for getting everyone to buy into some property with an equal share of stock in it. It's not complicated.
yeah whats so difficult
>implying that matters
>implying it's ever actually true
As a rough example, let's say a Mutualist society builds a powerplant. In order to fund it, stocks are sold in advance, which makes it a collectively owned enterprise. As a consumer, you have options - you can not buy stock and pay $2/kwh up to a cap of 1 kw (because the power generation ability is finite), or buy into the enterprise with a stock package and only pay $1/kwh and your maximum power draw goes up to 10kw, or maybe you can buy multiple stock shares if you have a large business and go to say $0.70/kwh with a max of 70kw. If you are employed by the enterprise you also get stock shares in addition to your wages (value dependent on position, track record, and tenure), but instead of reducing your power costs these pay dividends right into your paycheck, so when the company does well you get more money. All stockholders get a voice in the operation of the enterprise, whether consumer or employee, it's based on the amount of stock owned but employees have more by default since they're more directly affected by internal policies.
How does this sound?
Except company ownership in regard to stocks doesn't necessarily have anything to do with usage - it has to do with returns.
You can own 100% of the stocks in my company, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with you having any say in what I do with the company's equipment, management, or anything else besides what is explicitly listed under the stock terms.
That's a bad way to do things, and if I were a 100% owner of a company - or even a 5% owner - I'd be pretty unsatisfied with not having any say in how it's run. I mean, it's my property after all.
Maybe you're thinking of shares
>that's a bad way to do things
No - it's a way to do things. Prima facie there's nothing "good" or "bad" about it.
Having stocks is not necessarily about property. It's about whatever the stock *actually* represents. If I sell stocks to my company, and the terms of the stocks are only that the stockholder gets some share of returns, then that's what the stock is - it's not ownership or property, it's a contractual agreement in which one party is due whatever the grounds of holding the stock affords them.