Mutualism

[Enemy of the State]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutuali...omic_theory%29

It's quite an interesting, perhaps forgotten about ideology. It's basically free market socialism, as first envisioned by Pierre Joseph Proudhon. Mutualists believe in the labor theory of value, but unlike socialists, they still believe in private property and markets. Property to them is based on use. You only own something as long as you use it. This means that rent is illegitimate. From this comes the famous phrase "Property is theft!". In mutualism, everyone would own a means of production and trade would represent equal amounts of labor. Mutualists believe that without the state, mutualism would appear spontaneously as the result of market processes.

The threads in the political academy seem to rotate, so lets have a thread on something I don't think gets discussed much. What to think of mutualism?

[Astaroth]

I might of course be wrong but while reading a bit about this subject I wondered one thing: how do you measure the value of labor? Is it time spent? Is it effort? Is it how "hard" (intellectually or physically?) something is? The problem is, all of those standards are quite arbitrary and none of them is completely fair. If you just go by time spent working on something, those who are lazy and/or slow workers will benefit from the system unfairly. If you go by one of the other criteria the system inevitably becomes completely subjective.

To give an example: Person X comes up with a revolutionary new design for a chair. He acquires wood for the chair and has to travel many hundreds of kilometers to do so. Then he works hard for several days to build said chair. But now person X is hungry. He goes to a cook and wands to trade his chair for food. Person Y, the cook, now wants to give him as much food as he prepared in the time that person X was building his chair. However, the cook is a quite slow worker and he had a quite easy, relaxed life while cooking. He didn't have to put much effort into it, didn't have to be innovative or anything. Is this fair?

[Jingles]

Astaroth, it's measured in what Marx called "socially necessary labour time."

From wikipedia:

The simplest definition of socially necessary labour time is the amount of labour time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity. This is an "average unit labour-cost", measured in working hours.

That should answer your question I think.

[Enemy of the State]

Bah, TWC needs a mutualist or two

[Astaroth]

Thanks, but that's still quite inaccurate I believe. I mean, I understand the concept but it seems quite hard, if not impossible, to apply in practice. It is very difficult to measure things like 'intellectual labor' (as opposed to physical labor) and you also have to take the quality of a product into account.

To give an example: if the average worker produces a certain commodity in an average time, how do you compare that to a more skilled worker who produces more of the same product in half the time and with higher quality? What if someone invents a more advanced tool? How do you measure the value of his labor with that new tool? What if he gives it to someone else? Also, who decides on the "quality" of something?

[Jingles]

Remember the labour theory of value doesn't try to measure the value of labour itself, rather it asserts that labour is a key factor in determining the value of a finished product.

I probably should've said that earlier...

[Claudius Gothicus]

Remember the labor theory of value doesn't try to measure the value of labour itself, rather it asserts that labour is a key factor in determining the value of a finished product.

I probably should've said that earlier...

Well no... Marx himself said that the only important factor determining value was labor. It was a measure and that's where it fails. If something can't be properly measured then we can't assume that it straight away influences it's surroundings or even exist.

Problem is you're actually making a defense for the costs of production theory not the Labor theory.

[Jingles]

Well no... Marx himself said that the only important factor determining value was labor. It was a measure and that's where it fails. If something can't be properly measured then we can't assume that it straight away influences it's surroundings or even exist.

Problem is you're actually making a defense for the costs of production theory not the Labor theory.

Uh, no. He asserted that labour was the one material, and thus measurable component of value underlying all commodities. He was quite clear that there was a difference between value and use-value, and in either case, he still didn't try to measure the value of labour itself, so I'm still correct.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Uh, no. He asserted that labour was the one material, and thus measurable component of value underlying all commodities. He was quite clear that there was a difference between value and use-value, and in either case, he still didn't try to measure the value of labour itself, so I'm still correct.

I can still remember entire chapters of Das Kapital dedicated to take measures and make comparisons between different types of work and labor. One was about a tailor and suits if I remember correctly.

What I'm trying to say is that Marx did indeed try to use the labor theory as a measure... it failed really hard because in the end Labor can be as subjective as marginal utility, the only difference being that marginal utility can be measured(on a psychological and individual basis) while Labor given it's social nature cannot.

[Denny Crane!]

What I don't get is at present we have immense competition between Microsoft Apple and Google and that is driving innovation. Would that still happen in a mutualist society? I guess I'm a little confused as to the differences if there are any and how that would change society.

[Jaketh]

Any kind of socialism=bad

[A Fistful Of Dollars]

Any kind of socialism=bad

Why?

[Saturn]

Why?

Because he said so.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Because he said so.

Because it does threaten the existence of individuality to a certain extent?

[Enemy of the State]

Because it does threaten the existence of individuality to a certain extent?

But collectivists didn't have a monopoly on the word in the beginning. Individualists like Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner called themselves socialists. They did believe in the labor theory of value, and wanted to eliminate perceived exploitation of the workers, but they believed it could be done through liberty and not authority. But eventually, Marx eclipsed the writings of Proudhon.

Benjamin Tucker's "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ" on the subject
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anar...r/tucker2.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be
happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence,
the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society,
with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second
considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed
worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no
sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the
abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes
the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the
second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of
individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: 'Do as the government wishes."
The second says: 'Do as you wish yourself.'
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State
The mine to the State
The tool to the State
The product to the State
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.
Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist."

Remember, this was written way before the first socialist states even came into existence...

[Saturn]

Because it does threaten the existence of individuality to a certain extent?

How'd you get that from my clever trolling?

[city17citizen]

Lol Fun idea.

I understand that rent illegitimacy was meant to avoid 'capitalistic exploitation' and prevent from acute wealth disparity. In moral terms it can be justified, but still, like Socialism it may kill willing to invest and entrepreneurship. Nobody will invest when no profits are anticipated. As a result no new jobs will be created and 'free market' will remain nothing but empty phrase.

Anyway, I got chair I don't use. Anybody wants to exchange for bag of candies? Come on, be Mutualists!

[Dr. Croccer]

Wasn't Proudhon opposed to the notion of private property?

[Claudius Gothicus]

Wasn't Proudhon opposed to the notion of private property?

Well he did write La propriété, c'est le vol didn't he?

[Enemy of the State]

Well he did write La propriété, c'est le vol didn't he?

That phrase is often misunderstood, and horribly misused. It's contradictory. If you believe in theft, you believe in some form of legitimate property, as the concept of theft cannot exist without property which to steal. Proudhon did believe in private property, just in a different way. He also wrote "La propriété, c'est la liberte" by the way, though that seems to have been forgotten.