General

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

MaikU — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:01:10 GMT

So mutualism is just a fancy word for socialism... good :)

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Wayreth — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:58:47 GMT

@F4M

I swear he has already addressed this in his prior statements. There must be some problem of reading comprehension and interest in only bias confirmation... His intentions are for an intellectual conversation not simple minded labeling. Bert actually tries to understand the othersides argument and not put forth strawman after strawman. I find these contributions of his worthwhile as a lurker. I'm being introduced to areas of thought outside of what I'm typically used to.

I'm sorry but your contributions pale in comparison and only find it humorous that you are still here after the berating by many from the community. If you cannot comprehend why he would talk to mutualists perhaps it would be best to reread and reflect on his previous responses to you rather than post baseless assumptions that amount to nothing but logical fallacies.

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Freedom4Me73986 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:41:30 GMT

lol! They are lulzworthy.

Why do you spend time debating these socialists?

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

myhumangetsme — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:03:28 GMT

Sheesh, you have far more patience than I.

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Bert — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:58:15 GMT

I posted the picture from the March low content thread in the mutualist FB group.

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Bert — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:07:50 GMT

Has to do with the fact you like to make wild remarks about something with no evidence, that you probably never read books by any mutualist nor have ever actually talked to any of them. You either think they are Marxists or Keynesians (a previous thread of yours you asked if mutualists believe everything Keynes and Marx said - which forfeits your ignorance that you do not know anything about them), and your way of connecting the dots is that one theorist influenced the other (but you have not probably read books by either). Thus, I ask, have you read any books (or anything) involving the ideas surrounding this thread?

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Freedom4Me73986 — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:00:07 GMT

Do you, like, even bother to read books?

What does that have to do w/ mutualism/mutualists?

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Bert — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 05:56:32 GMT

Do you, like, even bother to read books?

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Freedom4Me73986 — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:01:25 GMT

"OK theres a difference. But how big is that difference? If you saw the stuff the mutualists at Liberty Forum had on their table youd probably call them marxist. And didn't Proudhon inspire Marx to become a socialist?"

There are a number of differences. Namely, mutualists reject the state or dictatorship of proletariat, and they support markets, money, and private property.

They only agree in that they are opposed to capitalists controlling the means of production. Instead advocating workers controlling it together, but still allowing them to sell goods in the market, own private property, and do other things that exist in a market economy. Mutualists also might advocate rebellion against the state and other institutions, whereas Marxists see communism as an inevitable fact of history. The marxists see rebellion as childish and unscientific.

These were the muties I saw at LF: http://ne.libertarianleft.org/2012/02/28/of-alternatives-and-alliances-altexpo-x-liberty-forum-2012-and-beyond/

Muties are just commies who claim to want free markets. Proudhon inspired Marx to become socialist and Tucker praised Marx's analysis of capitalism.

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

John Ess — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:35:06 GMT

To be fair, it's not really true that women do nothing. Since a few minutes of sex is the least of the work of producing and taking care of a baby. During pregnancy, it is actually the man who can sit back and do nothing. Or as is the case today: take off for some other woman.

I think the better analogy might be if one said that the mother and father co-own the baby equally, and democratically make decisions over what is best for it. Since both of their labor is necessary in the whole process of child-rearing from conception, to pregnancy, to kindergarten, until they go away to college. But, while this is sensible in some degree, it presents the problem of carrying over the metaphor of physical production to the production of human beings. And owning things, versus owning other people. the latter of which i think ancaps and mutualists would agree is wrong.

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

MaikU — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:02:58 GMT

Mutualism debunked in few sentences:

Woman (or at least her womb) is means of production: man is a worker who does all the job to produce a baby and a woman can just lay still and do nothing. So clearly, she is "means of production". Now question: does men OWN women by this logic? Just because they worked hard and planted a seed? Seriously, dear mutualists? Seriously?

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

John Ess — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:09:35 GMT

"OK theres a difference. But how big is that difference? If you saw the stuff the mutualists at Liberty Forum had on their table youd probably call them marxist. And didn't Proudhon inspire Marx to become a socialist?"

There are a number of differences. Namely, mutualists reject the state or dictatorship of proletariat, and they support markets, money, and private property.

They only agree in that they are opposed to capitalists controlling the means of production. Instead advocating workers controlling it together, but still allowing them to sell goods in the market, own private property, and do other things that exist in a market economy. Mutualists also might advocate rebellion against the state and other institutions, whereas Marxists see communism as an inevitable fact of history. The marxists see rebellion as childish and unscientific.

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Bert — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:48:35 GMT

Ha, I used to not like Brainpolice because of his debate style, but now it's just amusing.

The one above is sort of low-level, but it's not like others where someone's try to "figure me out" and put a label to what I'm saying. Best argument with any stripe of leftist is to deconstruct their argument and never give your position. Eventually they unravel it themselves, and realize once they get to the foundation they don't actually have one. Accept whatever insults they give as compliments (aristocrat, bourgeoisie, egoist), that seems to bug them.

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

vive la insurrection — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:37:40 GMT

The best I've seen willing to discuss things is Brainpolice, and if you look at what he does - all he'll do is bitch, moan, and "deconstruct" a couple of yor aesthetic statements and than never say anything for himself.

After that, you'll get a few fringe nutters (maybe like Francois Trembly) who may even agree with what yor saying in their own weird way, gleefully insert the "big idea" nonsense deus ex machina of some kind of leftism for leftism's sake, and not mind that it will depopulate 90% of the earths population - which is I guess a somewhat respectable position.

Oh, and than there are people who talk of continual revolution and/or "deconstruction" - which to me is just an abstraction and a fixed idea and only slightly better than a typical conservative scheme - The science of the market process is the REAL concreate continual revolution / creative destructive force which deconstrcts all abstractions. Or perhaps better said the market is "contiunal insurrection" not revolution.

Left wingers are confusing to me.

Re: Conversation with some "Mutualists"

Bert — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:23:08 GMT

More conversations I get into I'll post them. Maybe I can initiate one with someone who's more of a challenge (generally, the ones who have read Austrian material as well).