Top products from r/mutualism

> he's a Tuckerite. Completely false. Carson made it explicitly clear that his views did not change.




This is Completely false. Carson's views changed a lot after he incorporated into it the work of Elinor Ostrom on Commons, Michel Bauwens and P2P people, and some Autonomist Marxists.

He eclectically uses the work of anarchist-communists like Peter Kropotkin, Colin Ward, Paul Goodman and Ivan Illich.

He also uses the work of the (aforementioned) David Graeber.

He even incorporated some of the ideas of non-anarchist libertarian municipalist Murray Bookchin.

"Anarchist without adjectives" is a real historical school of thought, it's not just a word.


I must remind you that I said that he was "decent". I never said that he was right or that I agreed with him.

> You keep throwing this "disgusting" buzzwords around.

You're the one who's throwing buzzword.

You've repeated three times the bullshit myth about "voluntary exchange".

You whole ideology is based on old ahistorical and fictional stories about "markets" which you always speak about in abstract terms and never check to see or they work in reality, their history or their actual effects on people.

Other the simple fact that if you turn something like health into a commodity means that one's access to it is based on how much money one has instead of being based one one's need for it. That's already pretty disgusting and I haven't even mentioned the social effects markets have on people and their relations.

Markets as such, whether "free", "monopolized", blue or whatever are forms of impersonal domination.

(For their history, read the books mentioned above).

There are non-markets modalities we use that already exists ever under capitalism.

Here's a short summary of market and non-market forms:


Here's a little list of characteristics of 1.gift-exchange, 2.market-exchange 3. demand-sharing:

gift-exchange and market exchange:

Gift exchange differs from barter or market exchange because the value of the gifts is judged qualitatively, not quantitatively as in the case of commodities. Gift-exchange is based on ‘the capacity for actors (agents, subjects) to extract or elicit from others items that then become the object of their relationship’.

In the famous book Gifts and Commodities by Christopher A. Gregory (an economic anthropologist) suggests this is a general tendency.

Gift economies tend to personify objects. Commodity/market economies, do the opposite: they tend to treat human beings, or at least, aspects of human beings, like objects. The most obvious example is human labor: in modern economics we talk of “goods and services” as if human activity itself were something analogous to an object, which can be bought or sold in the same way as cheese, or tire-irons.

Gregory lays out a tidy set of oppositions. Gifts are transactions that are meant to create or effect “qualitative” relations between persons; they take place within a preexisting web of personal relations; therefore, even the objects involved have a tendency to take on the qualities of people.

Commodity exchange (market), on the other hand, is meant to establish a “quantitative” equivalence of value between objects; it should ideally be done quite impersonally; therefore, there is a tendency to treat even the human beings involved like things.

Demand-sharing:

It's similar to what David Graeber calls "everyday communism", which he defines as:

"An open-ended agreement between two groups, or even two individuals, to provide for the other; within which, even access to one another’s possessions followed the principle of ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’."

(‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’, the old communist formula, basically means if you have a need and I have the ability to meet that need, I do it.

Keeping count or reciprocating is very frowned upon in these sort of situations.

This sort of communism is quite common (even under capitalism), in families, between friends and there's a little of it in every non-hostile relationship.)

What characterizes a sharing context comparatively is that it extends the circle of people who can enjoy the good implicated in a resource, for instance accessing a certain resource such as water. In other words, sharing food or drink is an action done for its own sake, putting the good of nourishment in the place of any specific goals that may be derivative of the transfer of food items, for instance the attempt to create obligations for the future. In this understanding, sharing is not a manifestation of an altruistic move, putting the goals of others above one's own goals, but rather one of renouncing derivative goals altogether in the face of intrinsic goods—its intrinsic value if you will. In gift-giving contexts, by contrast, goals of various kinds (whether held jointly by the exchange partners or not, whether altruistic or egoistic) override the intrinsic good of whatever it is that is being provided.

It's important to distinguish exchange, which is usually for “external” and strategic benefits such as having a network of partners, creating obligations for the future, etc. (gift-exchange) or and more impersonal and violent benefits when it comes to market-exchange – from sharing that entails the intrinsic goods of receiving a share (sharing out) and of being accepted as a member of the community of humans with recognized needs (sharing in).

Unlike what the economic fundamentalists would have you believe, sharing is not governed by either ecological need and pressure nor a diffuse notion of generosity and altruism. The ethnographic record shows that sharing takes place not only under conditions of scarcity, and that it typically takes the form of demand sharing rather than apparently generous gift-giving. In fact, a number of cultural conditions have to be in place for sharing to work. Unlike the case of exchange systems, these conditions are not formally institutionalized normative systems but, instead, complex systems of habitual practice. In the ethnographic cases (including those in capitalist societies), sharing works because people have a shared history of mutual involvements as kin, because they master numerous ways of initiating sharing through implicature and other forms of talk, and finally because they recognize the presence of others as the (often silent) demand that it constitutes toward those who have and who are in a position to give.

Many acts of sharing took place, and continue to take place, because they are initiated by the taker and social strategies are in place that decouple giving from receiving. Sharing may therefore take place (as said before) without the provider enacting and expressing charity. Often it takes place in a way that downgrades the act of giving as part of leveling any potential attempts of the giver to take political advantage from his or her economically advantaged position. Demand sharing not only inverts the sequence of action but also the tone of the transaction that is known as “charitable giving.” There is no sharing without a demand. The demand need not be uttered, and it need not be the demand of a specific interlocutor since it is a demand for provisioning that emerges as a consequence of moral role relationships or as incurred by a particular situation of copresence, as I would prefer to call it. We need to recognize that one’s mere bodily presence, underlined by addressing the other person in particular ways, is always a demand for being acknowledged as a partner, a personal being with legitimate needs. An appropriate definition of demand sharing is therefore much broader than the use of explicit demands such as “Give me . . .” leading to the appropriation of what one may think one is entitled to. The explicitness of the demand may differ and it may be entirely implicit very much like a “silent demand”. Humans are sufficiently able to put themselves into the situation of others to be able to know what the intrinsic goods of shared objects are for fellow humans without any demand being uttered.

Sharing is generally characterized by the preparedness to suspend measuring objects against one another (which means that sharing does not necessarily entail that everyone gets the same) in that situation and by the unwillingness to hang on to something in a particular situation.

You can understand this better about this by reading Thomas Widlok's recent book "Anthropology and the Economy of Sharing":

https://www.amazon.com/Anthropology-Economy-Sharing-Thomas-Widlok/dp/1138945552

"Utility theory" and monstrous neoclassical concepts like "pareto efficiency" have absolutely nothing to with mutualism or any real socialism.

Accepting the enemy's ideology from the onset is fighting a losing battle.

For critique of garbage economics take a look at:

"The Empire of Value: A New Foundation for Economics" by André Orléan:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/empire-value


"The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community" by Harvard Prof. Stephen A. Marglin:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047228



And the marvelous "More Heat Than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics" by Philip Mirowski:

https://www.amazon.com/More-Heat-than-Light-Perspectives/dp/0521426898