I am a Mutualist. I have been through many leftist movements, I have been active in them, and in the end I became a Mutualist, very attached to anarchism, mainly to a more Communalist political organization but with a Mutualist economy.
Yes, I believe in the free market and I am anti-capitalist. I came to these conclusions above all after first abandoning the Leninist planned economy, because it was inefficient and became state capitalism. I came to embrace ideas of Cybercommunism, but I consider it too cumbersome to be applied immediately and can be very risky. Then I abandoned Social Democracy because it did not solve the problem of inequality. I became a Mutualist because while I adhere to the ideas of Self-Managed Socialism and Workers' Councils, I detest hierarchies and consider them oppressive, including representative democracy, as I consider true democracy to be closer to anarchist ideas. On the other hand, I believe in the freedom of producers. In my country there is a lot of illegal street trading, and I consider it a right to be able to sell individually as long as you do not exploit or create wage relations, so I only support cooperative companies with free partners and individual ownership.
I believe that Mutualism can be a possible and practical system if a structure is created that makes it feasible, and I consider it a viable way to end Capitalism, wage labor, and private ownership of the means of production.
I do not rule out the possibility that Mutualism will lead us to a Post-Scarcity Communist Society. I think that a Mutualist Society should have as its perspective the achievement of a 100% automated Post-Scarcity Communist Society, but with a libertarian political organization similar to that proposed by Bookchin in his book “Post-Scarcity Anarchism”
I have more things to say, but I leave it for any questions you may have. I hope there are more mutualists so I can organize with them
Pd: I support Rojava and I consider that its economic model is mutualist in practice
>>2088885yes
hummus is a shit food and terrorist group
>>2088895can you drop the LARP already? you guys are at the stage where you're promoting "muh free market, muh liberty" crap, you don't give a fuck about socialism, otherwise you'd be for the ba'ath party at the very least
if you seriously believe america is safeguarding socialism in syria you are beyond fucking insane, get help
>>2088902>>2088903except they did for over a decade while rojacunts collaborated with america and israel to destroy the country
anyway, mutualism. what's the point of this bullshit when anarcho-communism is already right here for the stupid assholes who feel like communism is too "authoritarian" or whatever? is this just your way of dipping your toes into admitting you're for capitalism? OP is literally saying he wants free markets, can't make this shit up
>>2088906>>socialism is when centrally plannedyes
>>slaverythat's what socialism gets rid of, wage slavery (and in some cases regular old slavery for peasants in the russian empire and tibet)
>>2089103then why is there win-win cooperation?
checkmate snow roach
>>2088867>I only support cooperative companies with free partners and individual ownership.The revolution will be built out of
CUMCooperatives
Unions
Mutual Aid
>>2088867>I do not rule out the possibility that Mutualism will lead us to a Post-Scarcity Communist SocietyWe already have post-scarcity for most essential commodities and means of production. The real problem is the deliberate destruction of the productive forces to create artificial scarcity and raise prices.
Start listening to this video at 3:00 to see what I mean.
>>2088885If for you balkanization is to create an autonomous region with self-government that breaks the national barriers of the modern nation state, to overcome capitalism and apply democratic confederalism, which does not seek to create a state, then yes, in that sense and only in that sense I support balkanization.
Any alternative strategy is preferable to living in this Capitalist dystopia, I would also balkanize if the goal is to overcome Capitalism, although later I would seek to unify the country again, it is a temporary and strategic balkanization, that is how I see it.
By the way, do you have a flag of the Sandinista Front? It's funny because I am Latino. I live in Latin America, I am using Google Translate to communicate here
>>2088917The thing is that Mutualism is under construction, unlike other socialist currents that have already been applied, such as Leninism or Anarcho-syndicalism, it lacks maturity, but well, that's what I'm working on, and I see it as a viable alternative that is worth trying, instead of just recycling Marxism
I don't believe in magic solutions either, that's why I tell you that it's something I'm working on
>>2088885Rojava is the only viable post-capitalist alternative. What do you want? A red bureaucracy with a single party that only owns state-owned companies? Do you really support Baathism? There is nothing revolutionary or socialist in Baathism, and I don't know what kind of socialist model you support, but if it is related to Leninism I don't want to know anything about it.
The alliance with the US was strategic to fight ISIS, nothing more.
I sincerely believe that you are a fanatic, and I find it horrible that you wish death to the only left-wing revolution of our time, you are no different from the reactionaries you claim to criticize.
>>2089656>so I can try to organize something internationallylol
you should try to organize locally first, and leftypol is not really a place for organizing, mostly sharing news, shitposting and debating
however mutualism is retarded and you really should read theory and join actual communists in your area rather than try to invent some new stupid meme ideology
>>2088867Okay? Who cares? This is exactly the problem with any kind of 'anarchic' tendency. It's all petty-bourgeois identity politics and 'who you believe you politically are'. 80% of your post begins with "I …" Who cares? Do you proofread this shit before posting it here?
>Yes, I believe in the free market and I am anti-capitalist.So you're stupid. How would this free market function? On what basis can the 'free market' be separate from capital? You understand that you can't have your cake and it eat it, too. On a market, you have competition, competition leads to monopolization, this lead to centralization of production and concentration of productive forces and suddenly there's capital. Or do you think that people wouldn't be able to 'own' anything in this society? Well, how do they then interact on your 'free market'? As independent producers or as legal persons with some kind of category of private property? Well, they can't all be independent producers, since clearly some can make coops and concentrate production even faster. So you need some kind of legal apparatus to uphold all these property relations, who own's which part of the coop, the product, the price - there's your state. You see how contradictory this idea of anti-capitalist markets is? Everything else is not even worth replying to. Pure fucking utopia.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htmV. I. Lenin Anarchism and Socialism (1901)
>1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation. These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.
>2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil. Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook. Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität. Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.
>3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism. (Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)
>4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat. Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society. Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers. Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.
>5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?<– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.<– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.<– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).<– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics. >>2088867You can be a mutualist and not believe in markets.
I actually think it is the best transition plan from capitalism.
>Yes, I believe in the free market and I am anti-capitalist.Why would you need a market in absence of commodity production, wage labor, and capital accumulation by (small) business owners? And if we're going to have all that, how is that not a continuation of capitalism?
>>2089705>Rojava is the only viable post-capitalist alternativeAn example of capitalist realism. Please look more into how their economy is run.
>A red bureaucracy with a single party that only owns state-owned companies?Would be an improvement actually. Besides I'm not sure what's wrong with a "bureaucracy" as if Rojava lacks one. Is this is about planning? Because everyone does that, small firms, big firms, governments. Economic planning isn't unique to any mode of production and with it the associated "bureaucracy" of the planners.
>>2089392Same. I remember us having threads like these 10 years ago.
<I support<I consider myself<I only support cooperative companies with free partners and individual ownership.Or you could steal instead thus not participating in capitalism at all…
>>2088867>and I consider it a right to be able to sell individually as long as you do not exploit or create wage relationsMissed this part. There's so much wrong with this I dunno where to start.
For one, you're not "free" to sell anything in a system where people rely on commodity production and wage labor in order to survive. It's an imperative.
These relation of exploitation and surplus value extraction also continue to exist even when you split companies into thousands of tiny firms, as we already see with subcontractors.
But an even bigger issue is how any of this is supposed to work without generating profit and capital.
Say I make a widget, let's assume that under this system I am obliged to buy my inputs from another individual producer (you). I cannot sell my products at a profit as this would be exploitation in the long term.
But without profit, how would I insure myself against downturns or "inventory shrinkage"? How will I be able to buy new machinery?
And if your suggestion is to take out a loan, how would I be able to repay it? If I were to increase my prices my business would become uncompetitive immediately. If I did find a way to repay the loan, I could continue selling, but with much less labor. Meaning that whilst others might be forced to work 8 hours a day, I might be able to get away with 1 hour a day.
And this assumes we all have the same cost of living. Who is going to check if my prices are "fair"? Another "red bureaucracy"?
But why would people feel the need to do this at all in an otherwise socialist world?
>>2109955What experiments? Again, planning isn't unique to any mode of production. Individual Rojavan firms also do planning.
This obsession with individual producers and "being your own boss" is thoroughly petite bourgeois.
Unique IPs: 30