So What the Heck is Mutualism?

BCPVP · #1 12-12-2006, 01:26 AM

Seems that we have the same type of discussion going on in two threads about this, so might as well condense it a bit. I'm a little confused as to the difference between mutualism as explained so far and communism. Nietz or neverforget, wanna help me out?

neverforgetlol · #2 12-12-2006, 01:31 AM

http://www.mutualist.org/

[ QUOTE ]
Article deleted for copyright reasons

[/ QUOTE ]

bobman0330 · #3 12-12-2006, 01:36 AM

Two questions:
-how would criminal activity and regulation (e.g., air pollution laws) be dealt with? Do you think a mutualist society would achieve these ends more or less efficiently than the current system?
-how would a mutualist society come about? That link suggested violent revolution, which makes me a bit uneasy.

hmkpoker · #4 12-12-2006, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
-how would a mutualist society come about? That link suggested violent revolution, which makes me a bit uneasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think YOUR society came about?

bobman0330 · #5 12-12-2006, 01:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-how would a mutualist society come about? That link suggested violent revolution, which makes me a bit uneasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think YOUR society came about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Tories felt uneasy in 1775.

BCPVP · #6 12-12-2006, 01:50 AM

Ok. I have a few questions.

[ QUOTE ]
We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use.

[/ QUOTE ]
How far do we take this? Is any property that I'm not standing on and/or using up for grabs? There was some mention of the "community" (which is defined how, btw?) voting on the legitamacy, but this seems to run afoul with the next statement:
"We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid."
The community will likely have to be coercive towards people engaged in disputes over who owns what. For instance, say a man buys another house somewhere and before he sells the first one, a person makes camp in that house. Now we can clearly see that this was not voluntary. And if the "community" votes that the squatter is the owner, the original owner will be coerced into giving up property that he bought for his own use.

Along the same lines, I thought there was mention of not being able to rent out property. Well, doesn't this also violate the belief in free exchange and voluntary relationships? When someone rents property to someone else, the original owner is certainly not intending that the property now belongs to the renter.

Also, how do mutualists feel about banks?

hmkpoker · #7 12-12-2006, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the distinction between property that's being used correctly and property that isn't is collectively decided and collectively enforced. The majority in such a society has eminent domain over all the land. It's collectivist.

neverforgetlol · #8 12-12-2006, 02:03 AM

as opposed to a few landlords having eminent domain.. what is that?

neverforgetlol · #9 12-12-2006, 02:09 AM

we are fine with banks.

it's unclear how renting is a voluntary transaction, nor how rent is legitimate.

BCPVP · #10 12-12-2006, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
we are fine with banks.

it's unclear how renting is a voluntary transaction, nor how rent is legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unclear? If both sides agree to the transaction and neither is forcing the other to agree, it meets the definition of voluntary. How much clearer can it get?

If you're fine with banks, how do the prospective depositers keep from having their money simply stolen? Wouldn't the property of the depositers now be in possession of and made use by the banker? Is it not now his property, according to mutualist doctrine? And if banks are ok, what about interest? Isn't interest like a type of rent? The wikipedia article I'm reading about mutualism right now says that mutualists should be against interest.