Talk:Mutualism (economic theory)/Archive 2

message: Kev, why are you deleting what historian Albert Weisbord considers to be a defining quote about mutualism? RJII 05:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you have been on a rampage the last two weeks putting every damn selective quote you can find regarding private property into every article you come across.  And in each and every one of those articles there is either already one or more quotes saying the exact same thing, or there is a great deal of description with sources saying the exact same thing.  You are not trying to expand on the understanding of mutualism here, you are merely trying to emphasize those (very few, apparently) parts of it that agree with your own political bias.  If you want to bring in some NEW information, rather than spin your wheels repeating info already present, then of course I would not object.  Kev 05:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Private property is essential to individualist anarchism and mutualism. It's necessary to drive that point home. It looks like you want to make individualism so vague that it's indistinguishible from collectivism, which is truly bizarre. That quote is important and I'm going not going to stop putting it in, ever. RJII 05:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I know RJ, your are so locked inside your little world you can't see beyond it, and you get petulant when people block you from describing your worldview.  I'm sorry, I wish this was the "Mutualism according to RJ" article, but it isn't.  Kev 05:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kev deleting quote 

message: Why are you deleting what you're deleting (other than that I'm the one that put the stuff in)?  I don't get it. RJII 22:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  millerc 

message: In what context did Fourier use the term "mutualism"? He certainly didn't support mutualism. RJII 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is apparently in the "Traité de l'association domestique-agricole," which I haven't tracked down yet. There is a possibility that this is part of what Brisbane translated. I'll do some more digging. But "mutualism" was a logical neologism for various sorts of mutual aid arrangements—and there are some connections between Fourier's theory of harmonies and the attempts at "synthesis" or "balance" of Proudhon and Greene. Proudhon had contact with Fourier, and picked up the notion of the "series" from him. Hard to say right now. I'll have the New Harmony Gazette articles scanned soon, so folks can take a look. Libertatia 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a copy of the Traite on the way from another library. I'll keep you posted. Libertatia 00:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. RJII 00:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got faculty library access for the moment, and an extensive personal collection, so don't hesitate to pitch this sort of question. I enjoy chasing this kind of stuff down. And since I'm teaching intellectual history, I can claim it is work. ;) Libertatia 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No word on whether he was talking about a labor for labor system? Also, was he referring to his own system or someone else's? Was he referring to a system at all? RJII 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourier 

message: The claim is that: "Mutualism was first implemented in practice by individualist anarchist Josiah Warren in America." This is essentially Swartz' position, but what does it rest on? And is it representative of mutualists in general?
The claim for Warren would presumably be that the Cincinnati Time Store or the equity village experiments are uniquely and originally "mutualist"—in some way that previous cooperative experiments were not. 
Kevin Carson's Mutualist FAQ begins: "As Kropotkin showed in Mutual Aid, voluntary association for mutual aid is as old as the human race, and resurfaces whenever the authoritian state is at an ebb..." His understanding of mutualism appears to be broader than Swartz'. 
Presumably the Proudhon-Greene banking schemes are also examples of practical mutualism (or would have been if they had been more fully enacted.) But Greene acknowledged that his form of mutual banking had been attempted in Massachusetts in 1740 (see "The Provincial Land Bank" in Radical Deficiency... (1857), and we now know that the colonial experiments go back to The Fund in 1681.  
So how do we want to tackle the problem? We can acknowledge mutualism in practice, before the explicit beginings of a movement. Or we can figure out which specific early experiments anticipated the two traditions: the explicitly mutualist school of Proudhon and Greene, with its sense that it was balancing socialistic and capitalistic tendencies; and the individual sovereigntyist school of Warren, which has become "mutualist" retroactively, despite Warren's aversion to Proudhon. Libertatia 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Warren was the first to actually put labor for labor to practice in a community, right? RJII 01:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, although we need to look into the communities William Thompson and John Gray were involved with. But the mutual bank is also mutualism in practice, is it not? And it was put into practice in 1681. Libertatia 01:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on how you define mutualism. I've always thought of it as a labor for labor system, with mutual banking being just one way to help implement it. I think that's the underlying theme that connects them. It was defined as a system where equal pay is received for equal labor in an economics dictionary I saw online --unfortunately I don't remember what the name of the dictionary was. RJII 05:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this puts you in the weird position of defining "mutualism" primarily in terms of Warren, who never, to my knowledge, considered himself a mutualist, and who opposed attempts to link his theories with those of Proudhon. It makes more sense to take the words of Proudhon and Greene on what mutualism was—and look for indications of what mutualism currently is among current self-identified mutualists—than it does to fall back on some dictionary of economics. In any event, the labor dollar idea was shared by Warren and Owen. It's hard to make it the definining principle of mutualist anarchism. Libertatia 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First application by Warren? 

message: "Proudhon did not see a contradiction between these slogans. This was because Proudhon distinguished between what he considered to be two distinct forms of property often bound up in the single label. To the mutualist, this is the distinction between property created by coercion and property created by labor".
See "§ 4. — LABOR — That Labor has no Inherent Power to appropriate Natural Wealth" in 
Proudhon believed in posession of land, not in propierty of land.
:It depends on what time frame you're talking about. He later dropped his talk about "possession" and supported property in land. From the Proudhon article: "Now in 1840, I catagorically rejected the notion of property...for both the group and the individual," but then states his new theory of property: "property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists, with an unequaled capacity for setting itself against authority..." and the "principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual." (Theory of Property in Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon p. 136) He supported the right of inheritance, and defended "as one of the foundations of the family and society." (Steward Edwards, Introduction to Selected Writings of P.J. Proudhon) 
:But the article supports what you're saying but it could definitely be said better --"property created by coercion" would be fencing in and protecting unused land. RJII 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Who decides that Fourier, the first person to use the term, is not a mutualist? I'm just curious as to whether or not there are any sources that indicate his mutualism was not mutualism, or imply that this article should only focus on one kind of mutualism. --AaronS 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See three sections up on this page. RJII 16:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I just took a look at the original source. Unfortunately, the Traité de l'association domestique-agricole is immense, and I haven't yet got my hands on the 1822 edition, for which we have a page reference. It appears that "mutualisme" in Fourier is simply another of the large number  of neologisms he created to expand on his general notion of "association." I can't find any indication that the term is particularly important to his scheme. We know that "mutualist" as a self-identification hasn't been found prior to the 1826 "New Harmony Gazette" columns. If anyone has access to the 1822 Traité, we can clear up this pre-history. Libertatia 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we'd have to know how Owen used the term. Owen supported communalism rather than a private property trading system. I think Martin says that Warren credited Owen for the idea of labor notes, doesn't he? But, I don't know how Owen was using the term "mutualism" --whether he was referring to the labor for labor system, or his own communist system, or again, just a generic term that doesn't refer to an economic system. RJII 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro says "The first usage of the noun "mutualist" was in the New-Harmony Gazette by an American Owenite in 1826." My mistake;I thought it said Owen. But, same thing --how is the Owenite using the term? Owenites did not support private ownership --at least not until the system collapsed in the midst of confusion and conflict. RJII 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Owen wasn't using the term. A member of the New Harmony community called himself "A Mutualist" while advocating mutual-aid experiments within existing cities, rather than in separate experimental communities. Warren did not, to my knowledge, ever call himself a "mutualist," and the only explicit connections between the labor dollar schemes and avowed mutualists are connected to this unverified stuff about John Gray using the term. The mutualism of Tucker's generation jettisons a great deal of Proudhon and Greene, and seeks to unite the labor dollar and the mutual bank. It is, in many ways, a separate philosophy. Swartz and the Mutualist Associates do a bit of reinventing again in the 20th century. And contemporary mutualists pick and choose once again from the historical sources. Libertatia 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, we need to get a sourced definition of the economic system of "mutualism." We can't make up our own, or it's "original research." People using the word to refer to something other than an economic system is not really relevant, unless we have a small section on etymology. RJII 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logical definitions to use are the current OED, which emphasizes equal liberty and reciprocity among individuals, Swartz' opening definition from What Is Mutualism, which has much the same character, and passages from Proudhon and Greene. We can write a short paragraph about related, early uses, and touch on these others. It should be sufficient to define mutualism much as the most recent sources do, and then add that the first generation of explicit mutualists believe that there was more to it than that. The present emphasis on the LTV isn't supported by the contemporary definitions. We can, and should, address the fact that some form of LTV seems to be used by pretty much all mutualists, but the emphasis seems to come from mutualists' felt need to defend against anti-LTV libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. If we move that stuff down the page a bit, we can more easily address the differences between the mutualists as well. Libertatia 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourier not a mutualist? 

message: Merging Mutualism (economic theory) with Mutual aid would be like merging Saving and loan association and Savings (money). They are related concepts but don't belong in the same article.
More specifically, mutual aid is a social principle embraced by all anarchists while mutualism is an economic theory embraced by a small segment of the anarchist mileu (specifically, individualist anarchists). - N1h1l 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'm removing the merge label because the proposer has failed to provide a concomitant argument. -- WGee 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: This article needs some work. I'm not sure if the definition is as good as it can be. I've been looking around for sources for a definition but they are hard to come by. Mutualism seems kind of vaguely defined. Different anarchists had different ideas of mutualism. Like, Greene's mutualism isn't the same as Proudhon's. I'm looking around for a core definition. That'sHot 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarence Swartz's definition from What Is Mutualism is at least useful: "A Social System Based on Equal Freedom, Reciprocity, and the Sovereignty of the Individual Over Himself, His Affairs, and His Products, Realized Through Individual Initiative, Free Contract, Cooperation, Competition, and Voluntary Association for Defense Against the Invasive and for the Protection of Life, Liberty and Property of the Non-invasive." Contemporary mutualists struggle with the fact that there have been multiple "mutualisms" with only a family resemblance. Proudhon and Greene were close enough in their beliefs to be obviously connected. At that time, Warren was really involved in a different kind of project, and it would, in my informed by not citable POV, have been a mistake to call Warren a mutualist. Of course, by the end of the 19th century, mutualism had come to mean the union of Greene and Warren's economic schemes, without the broader philosophy of Proudhon and Greene. Early on, it would have been purely nonsensical to call oneself a "mutualist" and an "egoist," but by the time Swartz inherits the term, that's a fairly logical way to think of things. So we can probably come up with a core definition, but we'll have to account for the development of the term in order to be really accurate. Libertatia 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: A couple of thoughts: Proudhon's mutualism predated all other forms of anarchism that called themselves anarchist. Proudhon said, in What Is Property? (Chapter 5, section 6):
::The objects of communism and property are good — their results are bad. And why? Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law. 
::Now, if we imagine a society based upon these four principles, — equality, law, independence, and proportionality, — we find: — 
::1. That equality, consisting only in equality of conditions, that is, of means, and not in equality of comfort, — which it is the business of the laborers to achieve for themselves, when provided with equal means, — in no way violates justice and équité. 
::2. That law, resulting from the knowledge of facts, and consequently based upon necessity itself, never clashes with independence. 
::3. That individual independence, or the autonomy of the private reason, originating in the difference in talents and capacities, can exist without danger within the limits of the law. 
::4. That proportionality, being admitted only in the sphere of intelligence and sentiment, and not as regards material objects, may be observed without violating justice or social equality. 
::This third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property, we will call liberty.
Greene, as early as 1849, is talking about a synthesis of capitalism, socialism and communism: 
::All these systems are true; and, again, they are all false. They are false as partial, exclusive systems; but they are true in their mutual relations. Man exists as a beginner of motion or change, as a living soul; and therefore transcendentalism is true, therefore liberty is a holy principle. Outward nature exists in fact, and man may occupy it, and the rights of first occupancy are valid; therefore materialism is true, therefore equality is a holy principle; and all special privileges, all violence, ought to be reprobated. There is a Divine Order, for God governs all, and has created all things according to his Eternal Logos or Wisdom; therefore pantheism is true:—when men understand this, they will see that fraternity is also a holy principle. All these systems limit, modify and correct each other; and it is in their union and harmony that the truth is to be found.
Mutualism began by refusing the individual-social division. If its early propopents often emphasized the individual, it was against other forms of socialism (those of Owen and Saint-Simon) that seemed to deny the importance of the individual as well as the species ("Humanity"). Some contemporary self-proclaimed mutualists appear to work from largely egoistic grounds, similar to Tucker's, making "mutualism" merely the name of their economics. Whether that involves a partial repudiation or forgetting of the original stance of mutualism, or whether the particular way that mutualist imagine market anarchism in some sense continues the original condition, is a difficult point. Libertatia 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand you correctly, I think you're right. Mutualism is between individualism and collectivism. Benajamin Tucker was not a mutualist. Where does Tucker advocate labor checks? Where does he advocate mutual banking? Where does he advocate producers' cooperatives? I see that Kevin Carson calls Tucker a mutualist on his Mutualist.org web site, but I think he's wrong. I can't find any other sources calling Tucker a mutualist.Anarcho-capitalism 05:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding, right? Tucker claimed Proudhon, Greene and Warren as he primary inspirations in the realm of economics. He constantly promoted mutual banking and the cost principle in various periodicals, including liberty. Tucker was probably more uncompromising in his opposition to historical capitalism than some of the earlier generation of mutualists, since he had little patience for the kind of language games Proudhon played. Libertatia 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more to being a mutaulist than simply adopting some things that mutualists advocate.Anarcho-capitalism 01:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The irony of you telling me what it means to be a mutualist is delicious, but let me clarify my point above. This is the entry for mutualism as an economic doctrine, and it would be hard to find a figure more central to the promotion of that sort of mutualism than Tucker. More than that, as mutualism is currently probably most associated with Kevin Carson, who draws directly on Tucker, Tucker assumes an even more important place in our present understanding of the concept. For Tucker's advocacy of mutualism, start with Liberty, April 1, 1882, where Tucker opposes state-backed insurance schemes to "another alternative," explicitly that of Liberty, and that alternative is mutualism and mutual banking. You'll find similar stuff in The Word and The Index much earlier, and throughout the run of Liberty. This is the basics. As defined now, the article is about an economic approach that runs from Proudhon and Warren, through Andrews, Dana and Greene to members of the Liberty group—Tucker, Heywood, and Westrup in particular—through Henry Cohen and Clarence Lee Swartz, with a handful of modern-day currency cranks constituting the modern movement. Folks like John Gray and Weitling and the guy who wrote the New Harmony Gazette have bit parts. Proudhon and Tucker get the leads. It's not the only way to approach mutualism, but it is the one that is consistent with the other anarchism listings. Libertatia 02:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not telling you what mutualism is. I don't know what it is. That's what I'm trying to find out. People here seem to be making up their own definitions. I'm somewhat familiar with Proudon's philosophy, familiar with Tucker's philoophy and Warren's. But, I still don't know what mutualism is. What could be the defniition of mutualism that unites them all? But more than that, who says Warren is a mutualist? Who says Tucker is a mutualist besides Kevin Carson? Where does Tucker advocate using labor checks? Tucker advocates that prices be determined by supply and demand. Where does Tucker advocate worker associations? I would think if anything, workers assocations would be essential to mutualism, but I don't know. What is mutualism?Anarcho-capitalism 02:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you used the Swartz definition, then anarcho-capitalists would be mutualists too.Anarcho-capitalism 03:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except for all that socialism stuff, and opposition to rent, interest and profit. Oh, and the aim to get rid of wage labour by workers' associations. I could go on... [BlackFlag] 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutualism, individualism, collectivism 

message: Greene asked the General Court of Massachusetts to stop criminalizing mutual banking. Proudhon proposed to transform banking to a mutual form on a national scale, and then pursued a non-state bank when he was rebuffed. As "statist means" go, those ain't so bad, and they hardly, methinks, call the anarchism of their champions into question. Libertatia 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proudhon, as a politician - an elected Assembly member of the central French govt - tried to get the govt to coordinate and finance his "People's Bank." This is definitely using statist means. (The proposal was turned down and Proudhon soon came to his senses and renounced such means.) As for Greene, you're right - he simply petitioned the government to "remove all laws prohibiting the manufacture of money." I agree that this is unobjectionable. I deleted the "statist means" sentence; the temporary insanity by P. is not sufficiently noteworthy. Hogeye 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statist means 

message: This talkpage is for discussion of the article, and ways to improve it, not for a general discussion of Mutualism per se.  If your intention and goal is the improvement of the philosophy of Mutualism, and to proselytize for same, I wish you well and ask that you find a webpage devoted to such a cause and give it your attention and energy.  If, however, your intention and goal is the improvement of this article, I ask that we get our heads back in the game, as it were, and proceed with that task.  It seems to me that a great deal of time and energy has been devoted here to the discussion of the idea of Mutualism, and not as much to the improvement of this article about Mutualism, in which article none of us should be taking sides.  Thanks, and sorry if I came across as rude. ---Charles 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't write about something if you don't know what it is. Libertatia 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm really not sure what kind of a response that is supposed to be...  If one knows little about a topic, one should not write about it.  On the other hand, someone who knows a little about a topic, and is passionate about it, is probably the worst person to write about it---at least, in the context of Wikipedia, since we are none of us here to push our own point-of-view.  Perhaps the best person to write such an article would be someone who knows a great deal about it, but has no axe to grind or cause to carry.  My point in the statement above, though, is that this page is for discussion of the article, not for discussion of different interpretations of the meaning of mutualism.  This talk page should not be the place someone comes to learn about mutualism. ---Charles 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a slightly snarky answer. My apologies. But it looks to me like on this page (as opposed to Talk:Anarchism and some others) the discussion has really been oriented towards putting together the article. For awhile, we were very much focused on getting the origins of the term nailed down. That meant the pages were used to focus the hunt for sources. That has been very successful—one of those instances where Wikipedia lives up to the hype. Beyond that, it isn't self-evident exactly what the boundaries of mutualism are, so we're exploring the options. It's a bit of a mess, obviously. Currently we don't have that ideal editor, and we do have a certain amount of POV-pushing or over-enthusiastic editing. I don't see many options but to hash out some of the historical issues here on the Talk page. Or hang a disputed tag over the whole mess and get back to work elsewhere. Libertatia 16:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is taken.  And the apology is accepted.  Thanks for your thoughtful response. ---Charles 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For purposes of clarification... 

message: Can anyone actually cite a source in Proudhon to support the contention that he advocated "labor checks"? The System of Economic Contradictions (1846) seems the most likely spot, but I sure don't see it there. The Bank of Exchange was to issue a currency secured by discounted business paper, and the Bank of the People also issued secured currency, with somewhat broader criteria. Among all the economic schemes proposed in 1848, I don't see a labor currency. Greene explicitly addresses ill-directed labor, and resorts to a market estimation of labor worth. Tucker and the Liberty group seem to follow his lead. Libertatia 15:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some secondary sources: 
*"Social anarchism can be divided into several schools: The oldest of these is mutualism, founded by the man who was first to call himself an anarchist, the Frenchman Peirre-Joseph Proudhon. Under mutualism, the state would be abolished, and factories would be owned and controlled by the workers in the form of producers' associations. Compensation would be retained in the form of labor checks paid to workers by peoples' banks, corresponding to the number of hours they worked." (Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, page 5) 
*"...this [Proudhon] proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based no the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged inproduction, who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labor checks representing the hours of labor required to produce every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon described as Mutuellisme, all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent." (Kroporkin, Peter. Anarchism)
*"In order to counter the banking monopoly, Proudhon advocated "free banking." Instead of the State's giving the right solely to certain individuals to issue the circulating medium, Proudhon affirmed the unlimited right of each individual to issue notes on the basis of the goods that he might have and to use these notes as currency. Proudhon's plan consisted of the formation of an Exchange Bank which would issue notes equal to the value of the goods turned in, notes which would circulate as far as possible as currency. Because each person could get unlimited credit by the simple means of giving his goods as security, Proudhon thought in this way the "little man" could rid himself of that nightmare, interest; with the abolition of interest would fall rent and profit, as well. Thus the class struggle would be liquidated peacefully. The question would arise, of course, how to arrive at an estimate of the value of the goods turned in by each person? If goods were to sell at their value, according to Proudhon, who, following Ricardo and the utopian Socialists, defined value as labor, then one would have to find out how many hours of labor the goods cost and pay in notes that would enable the person to buy goods worth an equivalent number of hours. Thus every man's labor time would equal every other man's labor time. Here, then, was a scheme, like the scheme of Robert Owen and the other utopians, of doing away with money or the monopoly of money, and substituting, instead of the hard reality of gold and silver, the paper dreams of labor notes." (Weisbord. Mutualism. from Conquest of Power)Anarcho-capitalism 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a source in Proudhon, rather than secondary sources that all seem to be based in an accusation of plagiarism from Marx. Libertatia 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Weisbord. Are you really unable to distinguish between a mutual currency secured by goods and "labor checks"? Weisbord seems to run all his "paper dreams" together, but what he describes is clearly free credit, not labor exchange. Libertatia 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you turn in some goods to the national bank, it's determined how many hours of labor was required to produce them, and you're given a note denominated in that number of hours. Those notes circulate in the economy. How else would it be determined how much money to give in return for the security of goods?Anarcho-capitalism 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever heard of a thing called a market? A true labor exchange does not need merchandise security. The land bank and mutual bank traditions only issued currency against real property. Proudhon's Bank of the People attempted to extend credit wherever possible, but its consigment terms seem to have been market-based: "Article 39.—The Bank will buy the products of customers on account, at full value, half, two-thirds, three-quarters or four-fifths of the selling price, according to the circumstances, and the nature of the merchandise; and will cause them to be deposited either in a public emporium or in a warehouse." Proudhon's Solution to the Social Problem p. 103. Libertatia 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proudhon and "labor checks" 

message: The "History" section still isn't really isn't about history much. I've cleaned up the facts in the paragraph on the history of the term "mutualism". It's not pretty, as prose, but it's all citable, and i'll finish citing appearances of the various variations, once I find the best examples of the texts. Here's a rough sketch of what seems needed to flesh out the narrative history:
* precursors: weavers, friendly societies, land banks
* Owenite influences on Warren, Gray, Andrews, labor note tradition
* Warren overview
* Proudhon (and Leroux, possibly)
* Greene, mutual banks, other New England usages of mutualism
* Liberty group, Tucker, Westrup, 
* Cohen, Swartz, Mutualist Associates
* Gambone, Carson, connections to modern anarchism
With that taken care of, the sections below could be aimed at mutualist theory and nuts-and-bolts stuff. Libertatia 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great outline! Sorry that I am not more help with moving this forward. My knowledge is fairly limited despite a general interest in the subject. - N1h1l 13:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: It needs to be made clear that they make an exception for land. Obviously, if you mix your labor with unowned land, then what you are left with is the product of labor. It is not any less the product of labor as when you fashion a canoe out of a tree. Yes you didn't create the land itself, but you didn't create the tree itself either. The product of labor any natural resource changed to a different form through labor. This is where mutualists are inconsistent. Anarcho-capitalism 16:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was any consensus that "cultivated land is the product of labor," I wouldn't have any problem here. But there isn't. "Land is the product of labor" is hard to defend, no matter how you qualify it. Cultivation is the product of labor. And the fruits of cultivation are the product of labor. Occupancy and use is a matter of continued labor, and it grants some sort of property in essentially all systems that will recognize property. None of this is controversial, I think. But imposing a specific property definition that makes "land is a product of labor" appear as neutral, is hardly NPOV, or, really, useful. Libertatia 16:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an unusual concept that when you transform the land through labor that you are left with the product of labor. I think that's obvious to everyone except mutualists. Lockeans, such as Lyander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, consider it the product of labor, and that's why they support private property in land. The POV comes in when this article just assumes that tranformed land is not the product of labor. See?Anarcho-capitalism 16:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If I go to a peice of unowned land and fashion a hill out it, that hill is the product of labor. That is obvious to everyone. Proudhon supported "possession" of that hill, not private property (at least at first, then later he allowed for private property in land). It is a false statement for this article to say that Mutualists support private property in the product of labor, because that appears to be saying they support it for all products of labor but they don't.Anarcho-capitalism 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't seem to make up your mind what you think Proudhon supported. Anyway, your hill is a little different than "cultivation," which is what we were talking about a minute ago. And I think you may be rather severely playing down disagreements among even just Lockeans on these questions. In any event, it is common for property systems to make distinctions between movable and immovable property. The occupancy and use approach is hardly exotic, and acknowledgment that mutualists believe in occupancy and use in land immediately follows the line you're so het up about. There is little danger of misunderstanding. Libertatia 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not me that can't make up my mind on what Proudhon thought. It's Proudhon himself. At first he argued for "possession" then late in life changed and supported private property in land. There is not disagreement among Lockeans on land, on this. If you mix your labor with land, you own it, period, because it is the product of your labor. What I'm saying holds for "cultivated" land too. "Labor-tranformed" just is more encompassing. To cultivate land is to break up the soil to prepare for planting. If that is done, then that is the product of labor, just as if I fashion a hill of that soil. That's why anarcho-capitalists and other Lockeans are against the mutualist idea on this, because it allows others to take or use the product of labor of others against their consent.Anarcho-capitalism 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is untrue to say that Proudhon supported private property in land "late in life." To quote from his "Selected Writings": "What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on." (p. 129) This is from his "Theory of Property." BlackFlag 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if all Lockeans did agree, it can never be obvious that "land is the product of labor." In Locke, this obvious fact comes from a very odd theory about mixing one's essence with inanimate things, and the oddness is necessary because, on the other hand, it's pretty obvious that land is not the product of human labor. Property in land, as most people understand it, is legal or conventional. This is probably the case with nearly all actually existing property systems. In any event, the introductory paragraph is not the place for metaphysical arguments, particularly when the occupancy and use provision was set out clearly (until you merged it with the other point.) The opening paragraph is, frankly, awful, as it tries to impose an orthodoxy on a movement that never had one. But at least we haven't been edit warring over it. POV pushing on the little things will undoubtedly bring us right back to that though. (edit conflict) Ah. I see we're back to the "philosophy for thieves" stuff. Land that is occupied and in use is as good as private property under mutualist doctrine. If you think abandoned land is somehow your "product", I'm not sure you would find a general consensus. Libertatia 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not at all saying that it is obvious that "land is the product labor." If you come upon an untouched peice of land in the unowned wilderness, it is obviously not the product of labor. But, if you mix your labor with the land, then the improvements on that natural resource are the product of labor. If you build a hill out of the dirt, that hill is the product of labor. If you break up the soil to prepare for planting, that broken soil is the product of labor. Mutualists support absentee ownership of the products of labor (which is part of private property rights), except for in labor-transformed land. They make an exception. Mutualists support "possession" of labor-transformed land, not private property. Is this new to you? You're wrong about "abandoned." Mutualists support a right of people to take tranformed land, not only if abandoned, but simply because someone is not using it. To abandon something is throw it away and disclaim ownership of it. Just because I've stopped using land that I transformed, it doens't mean I "abandoned" it. I, in agreement with Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, still consider it my private property if I'm not using it because those improvements on the land are the product of my labor. Anarcho-capitalism 17:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the various Lockean approaches pretty well, thanks. And I know the many of the alternatives. But my 'main point is that a summary in the introduction to this article is simply not the place to either pursue (or not pursue, as if they were obvious) complex questions of "product" and "property." Libertatia 17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It cannot be allowed to say or imply that mutualists support private property in all products of labor, because they don't. They support "possession" in labor-transformed land, not private property. Individuals are allowed to steal the product of labor of others if they don't keep it in continuous use, if that product of labor is tranformed land. I think for some of them, it applies to houses too. I'll have to research on that.Anarcho-capitalism 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point you are concerned about is fully covered by saying that mutualist believe in the occupancy and use doctrine. But I'll let others weigh in. Libertatia 17:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with what I have there now?Anarcho-capitalism 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's less clear than what was there before you started. And it appears, to me at least, to contain a bit of POV-pushing. Let me say something (relatively friendly) about how your edits appear and about where I'm coming from. It always seems to me that articles end up being about the differences between whatever school of anarchism we're working on and your understanding of anarcho-capitalism. And you seem very certain that there are agreements on issues where I see all sorts of nuances and differences of opinion. Honestly, I spend a minimum of 3 or 4 hours a day working on radical and libertarian history. I'm fortunate that the teaching I do allows me to immerse myself in the literature of liberty.  But all of that research makes it clear to me how inadequate to the facts most of our entries here are. Honestly, we have hardly even begun to talk about the various sorts of mutualism that have existed. Wikipedia's rules encourage a good deal of reductionism, and discourage the participation of experts. But there ought to be a push and pull between simplifiers and complexifiers, if we're going to get results that are actually better than the other encyclopedias or political dictionaries out there. I guess I'm wondering if you can chill out a little bit. The battle to include an-cap in the entries is won. Ten years ago, we were battling to have any market anarchism recognized in mainstream movement circles. If you really believe in an uncoercive market anarchism, then your conflicts with actual mutualists (and with many, many actual social anarchists) are matters of detail. But those details are virtually all we see on Wikipedia, so we have a constant quibbling warfare which does nobody any good: not our readers, not any faction of the anarchist movement. FWIW. Libertatia 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The devil is in the details.Anarcho-capitalism 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is all the more reason to keep an eye on them, methinks. Libertatia 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I came accross something from Tucker, from Instead of a Book, where he recognizes that transformed land is a product of labor: "But anything is a product upon which human labor has been expended, whether it be a piece of iron or a piece of land. (It should be state, however that in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such are as based on actual occupancy and use.)" So Tucker was making the same point I was, that even though tranformed land is the product of labor an exception is made for it. I'm not "POV-pushing" at all, as you have claimed.Anarcho-capitalism 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that that last issue is settled by this one point, but. . .  It remains the case that the intro probably isn't the place for the battle. Occupancy and use is the criteria, and that's already there. Even Tucker's rather back-handed agreement doesn't make it obvious that "land is a product of labor." Libertatia 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "But anything is a product upon which human labor has been expended, whether it be a piece of iron or a piece of land." I'm afraid that is obvious that tranformed land is the product of labor and that Tucker recognized that. But then I didn't expect you to admit you were wrong.Anarcho-capitalism 20:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire. I'm more than a bit surprised to find that in Tucker, as it creates a kind of inconsistency among types of products that hardly seems plumb-line clear. Admittedly, it's nice to be wrong in ways that ultimately don't matter, as occupancy and use remains the criteria, whether you choose to speak of land as a product or not. Libertatia 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never said occupancy and use were not the criteria. All I've been saying is that it is misleading to say that they support private property in the product of labor, because it leads one to believe this refers to all products of labor. And that's why I clarified that this was not the case, in the introduction. It's not "POV-pushing" as you claimed.Anarcho-capitalism 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private property in the product of labor 

message: Carson, drawing on Tucker as his primary inspiration, represents one of the most individualistic varieties of modern mutualism, sometimes arguing in essentially egoistic terms. I've never seen any objection to the "free market socialism" formulation in mutualist circles online. Members of the mutualist federations are considerably less likely to be opposed to the term "socialism," as are those, like myself, who consider themselves in the tradition of the Proudhon/Greene generation. As for "speaking for mutualists," there simply isn't anyone, unless it's Larry Gambone, as clearly identified as a primary theoriest of modern mutualism as Kevin Carson. I'm not aware of any other contemporary mutualist theorist whose work has been given the sort of serious, academic response accorded to Carson's in the recent JLS special issue. Libertatia 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "free market socialism" 

message: The use of "capitalism" to describe existing economic systems is common, and consistent with other Wikipedia entries. It is, of course, important that context show whether one is talking about existing systems or ideal systems. In this entry, there is no chance of confusion, and inserting dictionary definitions is just bloat. Specifically, Carson's historical understanding of "capitalism" as based in state intervention is not in conflict with the definitions inserted. Historical critiques of "capitalism" are concerned with the origins of specific concentrations of capital, which could conform perfectly to the dictionary definition of "private ownership" and still be the result of state tinkering with markets, land titles, etc.—as is the case in most of the nominally "capitalist" countries. That these economies might be termed mixed is certainly true, but that usage is no more common than the other, and privileging it is unnecessary. Libertatia 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carson is not referrring to laissez-faire capitalism, which is what most definitions of capitalism refer to. Therefore it really needs to be pointed out that he's using a non-standard definition.Anarcho-capitalism 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Laissez faire is itself a historically tainted term. It was the nominal proponents of laissez faire to which the 19th century individualists opposed their free market theory. When the majority of our readers do not share your investment in keeping these concept pure, your quibbling becomes obvious POV-pushing. Libertatia 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I see it as the reverse. I see you, but especially Donnacha, as engaging in POV pushing. This is the definition of capitalism from the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." This is the definition most people have in mind when they speak of capitalism. That is representative of a mainstream definition of capitalism. Capitalism is by definition laissez-faire. That is, it is a system with minimal state intervention. You're trying to push your obscure mutualist definition of capitalism into the article as if Carson is using the term in the way most people use it. I don't know whether it's POV pushing or whether you're simply confused by your immerion in obscure whacked-out anarchist writings. But, I'm not going to let that happen.Anarcho-capitalism 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stay out of the rather pointless feud you and Donnacha have going. This is really an issue about how and when one uses a dictionary definition. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think if you asked most people whether, for example, the US had a "capitalist economy," they would say "yes." If you asked most anarcho-capitalists, they would say "no." This makes sense. Anarcho-"capitalists"—if they are not simply confused defenders of the status quo—are attempting to remake what is commonly called "capitalism" into something different. That something resembles the dictionary definition in that capital is to be held privately. But Merriam-Webster don't address the traditional dispute between the nominal proponents of "laissez faire" and individualist anarchists, which is the origins of existing concentrations of privately held capital and the means by which those concentrations are maintained. Libertatia 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute. By "most people" I don't mean the guy on the street who doesn't know any better. I'm talking about from an academic standpoint. Yes most people on the street will tell you that the U.S. economy, for example, is capitalist. But it's very common for academics and college textbooks to say it's a mixed economy. For example, even the US State Department says it's a mixed economy  Anarcho-capitalism 00:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: [office interruption] It's hard to see how it can be POV-pushing to allow "capitalism" to be used in both of the ways it is commonly used (describing existing or ideal systems), particularly when the context is clear. On the other hand, to insert the "pure" Webster's definition every time the word appears in some way that seems to reflect badly on the concept, regardless of context, is pretty obvious evidence of an agenda, and, frankly, more than a bit insulting to our readers. A scholarly aside: dictionaries are proverbially poor research sources, the sort of thing freshman composition students are taught to avoid. In the topsy-turvy world of Wikipedia, the boldest imprecision or outright untruth trumps primary sources, but it's not POV-pushing to attempt to remedy that structural flaw. Bottom line: you'll see me push for historical accuracy and against the kind of appeals to spurious "authority" that render that more difficult. Libertatia 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a giggle for you, from the same essay you use to attack Kevin Carson on that page: "A word about nomenclature. There are two types of “capitalism.” First, there is corporate state monopoly capitalism, or economic fascism. Here, the ruling classes are guilty of all sorts of exploitation and abuse. I have in mind outright theft, of course, not merely employing people on a voluntary basis." This is even a more damning extension of the definition of "capitalism" than Carson's. Libertatia 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't see the point. By "capitalism," people don't typically mean state monopoly capitalism. They are talking about a market economy with minimal state intervention. If Carson says he is opposed to "capitalism," it needs to be made clear that he is using the term in an unusual way. He's not referring to laissez-faire capitalism, which is what "capitalism" refers to in most dictionaries, encyclopedias, college textbooks, and by most academics.Anarcho-capitalism 00:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitions of capitalism 

message: I put up a "missing information" banner pointing out that Carson is referring to monopoly capitalism when he says "capitalism." That information should be included because that is very nonstandard use of the term "capitalism." I had a source in there from economist and anarcho-capitalists Walter Block pointing out the usage, but Donnachadelong has removed it. This is what he removed: "However, According to economist and anarcho-capitalist theorist Walter Block, Carson is failing to distinguish state monopoly capitalism from laissez-faire capitalism and calling the former simply "capitalism," improperly, and thus causing confusion. (Block, Walter. Kevin Carson as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 20, No. 1 (Winger 2006), pp. 35-36</ref>)" Anarcho-capitalism 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you two play nice? Block's "critique" is a shameful example of name-calling and not reading, but there isn't much harm in noting his interpretation, imho. Libertatia 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article stating Carson saying that "It is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market" needs to be explained for the benefit of the reader of this article. I don't want people that don't know any better walking away thinking capitalism is normally defined this way. It's not. Whether what someone has called "laissez-faire capitalism" is actually so or not is irrelevant. Laissez-faire capitalism is what it is. "Capitalism" as it is normally understood is a trading system with minimal state intervention.Anarcho-capitalism 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely relevant that there is as great a chance of a reader being confused by the ahistorical use of the term laissez faire as it is that they might be by the clearly contextualized use of the term capitalism. If the reader isn't going to read critically, or go to the bottom of the page for the criticisms, that is not something we can or should control.Libertatia 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're assuming that when people think of laissez-faire capitalism that people assume that is exists or has existed. I don't think that's true at all. All economic systems are ideal definition. Nothing ever exists in its pure defined form. If you're worried about that, then something can be said to safeguard against that. What Carson is talking about is very unlike laissez-faire capitalism - capitalism as it is ordinarily defined. It's so different, that that needs to mentioned.Anarcho-capitalism 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not really "assuming" anything. People say "the capitalist countries," and other people know what they are talking about. The "Laissez Faire Era" is an historical period. And anarchism has been responding to real movements and real practices, rather than fighting with dictionaries. Your version of the entry will be unlikely to offend or confuse someone unaware of the rather mixed-bag history of practical "capitalism," and will, in the process, confuse the context for the market anarchist alternative. On a page devoted to mutualism, it is hardly POV to use the current and an-cap scholar approved definition of "capitalism," particularly as the context makes the usage clear. Libertatia 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: I think the first point is redundant, given the second. It can be misleading. It can suggest fixed hour-for-hour trade with all its problems; to my knowledge no mutualist theorist really supported such proposals. Proudhon argues (somewhere in the General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, in the value section) that trade creates wealth. In my reading, a trade good/venture good/rent-seeking bad standard seems common among mutualist theorists. Jacob Haller 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Points 

message: Is all of that discussion at the top of this page one topic, or is it a couple different conversations all jammed together?  I'd be willing to clean it up, just to make the page flow better, if I could determine what is being discussed.  This is the reason that it is so important to use the headline feature, and to follow proper formatting.  This talk page is actually very good, as far as that goes.  I've seen some that are absolutely indecipherable.  ---Charles 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think you can, go for it. Mutualism is pretty complicated to explain though. And, it's so obscure that there's few secondary sources defining it so it's really hard to write about without it being "original research." Is there one mutualism or variety of philosophies called mutualism? If it's the latter then how do we define it? It's indeed a "mess."Anarcho-capitalism 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I was not clear.  I meant that long series of paragraphs at the top of this talk page, before the contents.  I cannot tell whether that is one long, disjointed conversation, or a couple conversations all jammed together.  It needs a headline. ---Charles 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're due to archive some stuff, but I added a header that I think reflects the debate at the time. Libertatia 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving does seem a bit overdue.  I can recall what it was like coming into a talk page as a new user, and trying to follow old conversations, which can be very intimidating.  That one, in particular, is very long and detailed.  One who is unfamiliar with the territory could get easily lost. ---Charles 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That mess at the top... 

message: Why you don't talk about Emilia Romagna? Read this article. This is an expample of a region with a econonic sistem next to mutualism in some cases. --83.97.228.207 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emilia Romagna 

message: Hellow everyone. I´m quite new on anarchist and mutualist theories and I must confess I feel very confused about some specific topics related with the different meanings of private property or communal property. I know a bit about social economy, self-employed people, or worker and consummer co-operatives. I believe in the next decades they are going to be a very interesting way of promoting at the same time private property and economic development, efficiency and the implication of everyone in the Economy. And I think mutuals and co-ops are quite interesting structures for allowing the State to become smaller (health services, educational services, ...) and, at the same time, making sure that this will not be a way for a defficient or elitist management of these activities by a small group of big capitalist corporations. It´s been done so in some european countries already. Well, what´s all this about? Is it mutualism? Is it individualist anarchism? Is it anarcho-capitalism? Is it anarcho-communism? Is it market anarchism? Please, help me.
--ZUIA2 11:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to understand 

message: Libertatia, why are you removing that? This is well-known to be the mutualist position on land. Their position is that occupancy and use is the only legitimate standard to retain control of something. They believe that a perrson has a right to take what someone else has mixed his labor with, such as labor-transormed land, houses, and buildings if that person has chosen not to use these things. If I stand guard to prevent you from taking over a house that I built that I have chosen not to use, it sees me as forcefully depriving you of your rights to the product of MY labor. Same thing for labor-tranformed land.Anarcho-capitalism 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it was unsourced, written in highly colored, POV language, inaccurate in various regards (as can be seen from the very discussions being referenced for the criticism), and generally not up to Wikipedia standards. It is a rant, not part of an encyclopedia entry. Nuff said? Libertatia 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You cannot, without engaging in POV-pushing, force your understanding of "product of labor" on the entry, any more than others, with different understandings, can. Our uneasy detente here depends on mutual respect of some very open conceptions. Push here, and it will be necessary to address other definitional issues. I don't think either of us have the time to go there. Libertatia 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carson himself acknowledges that the land has been mixed with labor when someone originally appropriates. Whether it's called the "product of labor" or something that has been "mixed with labor" it's the same thing. Tucker called land mixed with labor the product of labor. Are you even going to deny that a building is the product of labor? Carson believes that individuals have a right to steal the product of labor of the builder of a building if he chooses not to use it.Anarcho-capitalism 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't allow ownership in the first place. They don't recognize a person has having the right to OWN the product of their labor when it comes to labor-tranformed land, homes, and buildings. They only allow people to USE and OCCUPY the product of their labor. They recognize ownership of other commodities but not these things. So, it's inconsistent and not truly anarchist. True individualist anarchism allows individuals to own the product of their labor, regardless of what that product is. That's essential to individual sovereignty. Sure, they don't see depriving the builder of a home as stealing because they don't recognize him as owning the product of his labor if he chooses not to use that product. But, it is stealing, because sovereign person has a right to own the product of his labor. And, that is the criticism. Though mutualists don't see it as stealing (I think this is because they don't fully understand "soveriegnty of the individual" and the implications of that), the criticism is that it IS stealing. There is no way that mutualism and anarcho-capitalism could be compatible, because mutualists would see vacant land and buildings and feel entitled to take them over. Anarcho-capitalists would fight them.Anarcho-capitalism 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You go on as if there is one system for establishing "ownership"—and it is yours. Alas, the world is not so simple. If you are supporting the most common understanding of ownership, as you have claimed to do in other cases, then you end up coming in as a supporter of "ownership" as established by state mechanisms. Libertatia 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything the state does it not evil. Protecting private property is a good thing that the state does. The problem is that it's not consistent. It protects some property and steal other property. The state protecting my vacation house that is boarded up right now, that sits there for years at a time sometimes, on the beach is good. Mutualists, and other common criminals, feel they are entitled to break into that house and raise a family in it. The state also protects land that I've purchased that is just sitting there vacant so I can sell it when I retire so I can have some cash. That's a good thing. I have a right to purchase things and to own what I purchase regardless of whether I use them or not. It's fundamental to individual soveriegnty. Mutualist think they have a right to deprive me of my purchase. They think they can move in there and stay, and I've lost my precious investment. Whether it's the state or anarcho-capitalist defense, these things would still be protected. If you want to take land that is vacant for your use, take land that the state thinks it owns. Because that is truly illegitimate, because it wasn't purchased but seized or purchased with stolen tax dollars. Leave private property that people purchased with their own hard-earned money alone. You do not have a right to take private sector property whether it's in use or not.Anarcho-capitalism 19:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. Let's argue about a circumstance that's likely to occur. You don't even understand the problem addressed by anarchist thought on land tenures. You talk as if the target of the critique was would-be retirees. And it just isn't so, and never has been so. More importantly, however, you seem to be protecting a "zaxlebax" notion of property, part natural law and part state recognition, while, of course, the first notion is not widely held and the second is not even slightly anarchist. I think you're making a bit of an ass of yourself by repeating this "mutualists are would-be thieves" stuff. Carson has addressed the sort of issue you're raising and come to different conclusions. You display ignorance, and of a kind that could be easily rectified if you had actually read the (Google-able) debates surrounding Reisman's rants. But what's important for the article, and for the preservation of some modicum of civility around here, is that a POV notion of "property" is not imposed on certain sections of the entry. It is clear that mutualists differ from Lockeans of various stripes, and from proponents of legal recognition standards. It is absolutely clear that, under panarchic conditions, there would be complex accomodations to be made in the realm of land tenure. You think mutualists are "thieves" because they consider "perpetual title to the first claimant" a source of social ills. Chances are, most of them think of you as a dupe and stooge for the state for accepting current employment conditions as sufficiently "voluntary." Your edits today have bordered on the hysterical, in several sense of the term. There are real problems with "occupancy and use" systems, which proponents might get around to addressing, if we weren't always wasting our time fending off nonsense. Libertatia 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't even read the Reisman article. These are my observations. Mutualism supports theft. It does not recognize a right of an individual to control the product of his labor. Mutualism is its own criticism. What Carson says is condemning of mutualism to anyone who has a basic respect for the labor of others and their purchases.Anarcho-capitalism 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Around here we call that Original Research. Libertatia 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research? I'm not the one who put the Reisman criticism in the article. I'm just relaying what Carson says about mutualism. He doesn't recognize a right of a person to have true control over these product of labor, and receipts of trade. There is only the right to use and occupy. He says it himself.Anarcho-capitalism 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, and you just that it would give it that objective tone to add chatter about depriving retirees and the "right" to occupy. Carson has some clear and specific targets, as did Tucker, et al. I guess it's no research, rather than original research. See below. Libertatia 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't. I talked about retirees here, not in the article. Don't confuse the discussion page with the article. Original research on the discussion page, which is what I am engaging in, is permissible. Mutualism is false anarchism and anti-free market. Anarcho-capitalist and mutualists would be at war if mutualists actually practiced what they preached. And mutualists would lose, because people at a very fundamental level want to truly own the product of their labor, what they have purchased, and what they have received as a gift (whether they use these things or not). The criminal mind is in the minority, fortunately.Anarcho-capitalism 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism, your tone suggests that you are in need of a blog rather than a Wikipedia account. - N1h1l 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right.Anarcho-capitalism 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That goes without saying. If someone doesn't think any particular act is unethical then they believe people have a right to perform that act. A right to do something is simply the absence of a moral restriction requiring the refraining doing it.Anarcho-capitalism 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you are imposing your understanding of these matters on all comers. Debates about the nature of rights are as complex as those about the nature of property. Both are potentially part of our subject matter, rather than something that can be taken for granted. In this case, we have the testimony of Tucker that certain abstract "rights" are absolutely the wrong thing to do in practice, and that a good deal of care is to be exercised in the transition to equal liberty. He goes so far as to say, "In short, with our human limitations, absolute right practically has no existence." ("Right and Individual Rights," Liberty (Jan 7, 1882, p. 3.)) Skidmore talks about inalienable rights which are impracticable under all but the rarest conditions. (Rights of Man to Property) And so on. Libertatia 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't know that mutualists don't recognize a right of contract when it comes to contracting to purchase land but the purchaser doesn't use it, then you don't know the first thing about mutualism. It's only occupancy and use that establishes exclusive domain, according to mutualists. Contracts be damned. That's why it's such a horrid philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 04:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making this stuff up. Source it. Libertatia 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "An existing owner may transfer ownership by sale or gift; but the new owner may establish legitimate title to the land ONLY by his own occupancy and use. A change in occupancy will amount to a change in ownership." -Kevin CarsonAnarcho-capitalism 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, a contract to transfer ownership is not recognized as valid if the receiver doesn't occupy and use what he purchased. Duh.Anarcho-capitalism 04:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Which means if you purchase land from me but don't use it, Joe Schmo can come on that land and build small city if he wishes. You're property rights are GONE. Contract be damned.Anarcho-capitalism 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. You are projecting values, your own values perhaps, into the picture and extrapolating in really odd directions. The Carson quote says precisely nothing about any consequent "rights," and, in the material quoted above, Tucker says clearly that there are some logical consequences or potential "rights" implied by his theory that it would be wrong to act on. In the response to Riesman, several mutualists explicitly contradicted the position you are taking. You have not made your case—largely because it is the same sort of lame smear that Riesman engaged in. Libertatia 04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's right there: "An existing owner may transfer ownership by sale or gift; but the new owner may establish legitimate title to the land ONLY by his own occupancy and use. A change in occupancy will amount to a change in ownership." -Kevin Carson. You just don't understand mutualism, which is strange because you seem to be very defensive of it. The fact that mutualists see land that is not in use as being available for the use by the first comer, and that the purchaser is not seen as owning the land unless he uses it, is indeed attrocious. It repels all sense of propriety. If you don't like the mutualist position on that then obviously you need another philosophy to latch on to.Anarcho-capitalism 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reality check time: back in September, you didn't have the slightest clue about mutualism, and you're still just getting the basics down in regards to their property theory. You show no understanding of the other aspects. Anyway, it is one thing to identify circumstances under which absentee ownership might be considered invalid. And you are correct in noting that, for mutualists, occupancy and use is the standard. That, however, is only identifying a potential problem (conflicts between different regimes of "property"), and clearly not sufficient to establish how that problem might be addressed. Riesman attempts to paint mutualists as opportunists looking to prey on their neighbors. This is probably a reflection of the ethical bankruptcy of a position that puts property above other values. Mutualism has always had other components, recognized solidarity, and recognized "property" as always-already problematic, so that even the "best title" is not likely to be based in absolute rights so much as it is in local convention. Benjamin Tucker is an absolutely perfect example of how, on the one hand, you can possess certainty that the existing distribution of resources is unjust and founded in force and fraud, but, on the other, be reined in from exercising an apparent "right" to right things by respect for contract and a strong aversion to "invasion," even in the cause of justice. The distinction I am making is clearly present, in several instances which have been mentioned here, in Tucker's writings. I believe you will find these conflicts noted in Martin as well. Libertatia 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep talking about Reisman? I told you I haven't read the Reisman article. I'm not defending Reisman. I don't know what his arguments are. I'm merely repeating what Carson says. He says it's ok to take over land, by using it, that is not in use. And, that if someone purchases land (or homes), mutualists don't recognizes him as the owner of that land if he decides not to use that land. It is pure theivery and a lack of respect for the rights of others to buy and sell, and to own what one buys. By the way, I did understand Mutualism when I first came to this article. I was very familiar with the bizarre set of beliefs. What I was trying to do what find a sourced concise definition, that's all, because it seems to escape an easy definition. If there's anything that's easy to understand about mutualism is that it is perverse and anti-free market (not to mention the lunacy of the labor theory of value). It does not recognize that right of someone to own what he purchases, when it comes to land and buildings. Mutualists want to dictate the terms of the contracts of someone else. If I sell land that I'm using to someone else, that contract is between he and me. He does not require me to use the land that he's selling. But mutualists want to interfere and claim that I have to use what I purchase. To hell I do. I own what I purchase. Mutualism advocates invasion into the freedom and contracts of others. It says it's ok for people to come in and take over land that I purchased just because I'm not using it. You can't deny that. If you do, then you know nothing about mutualism.Anarcho-capitalism 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe what you want, and ignore the plain facts as much as you want, but you still do not have a source that says "mutualists believe they have a right to occupy land purchased but unused by the purchaser," and you simply cannot make the assertion on Wikipedia without a source that backs it up. Libertatia 02:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "An existing owner may transfer ownership by sale or gift; but the new owner may establish legitimate title to the land only by his own occupancy and use. A change in occupancy will amount to a change in ownership. Absentee landlord rent, and exclusion of homesteaders from vacant land by an absentee landlord, are both considered illegitimate by mutualists. The actual occupant is considered the owner of a tract of land, and any attempt to collect rent by a self-styled landlord is regarded as a violent invasion of the possessor's absolute right of property." -Kevin Carson. Can't you read? It says that when it comes to land, mutualists reject the idea that a person owns what he purchases if he doesn't use what he purchases. It says the new owner does not have legitimate title. It says that therefore if the purchaser excludes homesteaders from that land that he doesn't use that mutualists consider that an illegitimate use of force. It's as plain as day man!Anarcho-capitalism 02:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I see the offending phrase now. The problem is that this paragraph is followed, in the book, by one which denies that any of the property systems he is discussing (Lockean, Georgist, mutualist) "self-evidently correct." None of these alternative sets of rules for property allocation is self-evidently right. No ownership claim can be deduced logically from the principle of self-ownership alone, without the "'overlay' of a property system," or a system of "allocation rules." No such system, whether Lockean, Georgist, or Mutualist, can be proved correct. Any proof requires a common set of allocation rules, and a particular set of allocation rules for property can only be established by social consensus, not by deduction from the axiom of self-ownership. [also from p. 200, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy So your "smoking gun" is pretty severely undercut by the final appeal to "social consensus." The second paragraph is consistent with Carson's other statements on the subject, in debate after the publication of Reisman's article (which, whether you're aware of the argument or not, is both germane to the question and, of course, the citeable occasion for the criticism in the entry.) My apologies. You have a quote that seems to answer the conditions I stipulated. You don't, on the other hand, have one which addresses the question of contracts. I'll stand my ground on the Tucker issue, and, for the record, accept Carson's first paragraph only in tandem with the second. Libertatia 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you realize that when a trade is made it is a contract? One agrees to give one thing under the condition that the other person gives another thing. If you buy a piece of land from someone, that constitutes a contract. If the guy doesn't "deliver" the land then he has broken the contract. Mutualism says that if you buy some land you don't truly own it unless you occupy or use it. Therefore mutualism doesn't acknowledge the right of contract. It says if you buy land but don't use it, then anyone can legitimately take that land over by using it. It says that what you purchase is not yours if you don't use it. It allows theft of what was purchased. Now you, or Carson, may say that the right to the product of labor and what one receives in trade can't be deduced from self-ownership, but you're both wrong. If a person owns oneself, then if you take the product of his labor away from him against his consent, then you are depriving him of the use of his own body. This is because he labored to benefit himself, but you've in effect forced him to labor to benefit you. You've denied him ownership of himself ..the exclusive right to use oneself for one's own purposes (otherwise known as self-ownership). It's no wonder that Carson can be so inconsistent as to allow ownership of some products of labor but not others. He simply is not aware of the link between self-ownership and ownership of the product of labor of the self. He thinks it's all arbitrary. But, if a person owns himself, then he truly does own his labor and therefore its product. Since Carson doesn't recognize that, he has no problem with stealing the product of labor from the laborer and from he who he sells it to. The only thing good that can be said about him is that he doesn't recognize that he supports theft.Anarcho-capitalism 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Self-ownership" is a philosophically suspect concept, and certainly not an "axiom" in the sense that Rothbard believed. It was appropriate, at a time when the owning of other persons (through slavery, patriarchal family structures, etc) was considered acceptable, to assert in opposition that, if someone owns me, it's me. If I built an "a priori" system around the "self-evident fact" that human beings can be two places at once, you would laugh, but you swallow whole a system which breaks up the proprietor/laborer in ways that, ultimately, don't add up (and come pretty close to that other claim). On consequentialist grounds—"in its aims," as Proudhon said about "property"—we can certainly think of worse bases for property systems. But it's hard to think of much worse that confusing a consequentialist argument with, say, a praxeological one. Lockean "labor mixing" requires believing in even stranger notions than philosophical "self-ownership." You have yourself bought into the strange "property as prosthesis" notion, where to take your "property" is analogous to "taking your body." Now, you have shown absolutely no interest in any correction, through means invasive or noninvasive, of the inequitable conditions created by state intervention on the side of select capitalists and corporations. You would, no doubt, have stood on the side of the "Great Proprietors" against their tenant farmers in the anti-rent wars, perhaps arguing that peonage was, after all, "voluntary." Mutualist land reform aims, explicitly, at what Tucker called the "land monopoly." You can hardly have missed the importance of the "four monopolies," although you have pretty consistently come down on the side of the state-supported institutions. Your concern about the product of labor in land is really only a defense of absentee landlordship, consistent with your support of capitalist accumulation in the hands of the few, with your elitism, and with your general disregard for conditions of equity where the average worker is concerned. Your poor retiree, never a likely target for anarchists concerned with the impact of large capital accumulations, figures only opportunistically. It is likely that the self cannot be owned, that "property" is really "impossible," but useful "in its aims," that (as some Lockeans apparently agree) labor can become "unmixed" through abandonment (if it ever can really be "mixed" in the first place), that human beings are as much "possessed" as "possessive" in the prosthesis of "property," and that most of the economic concepts we try to ground philosophically are really matter of convention (which is not the same as being "arbitrary.") None of those "problems" are really much of a setback for people for whom liberty is the chief concern, though they probably look pretty serious to someone whose anarchism extends only to "Hey, dude, get your hands off my stuff!" We'll gradually get the section on land tenure taken care of, and all of this will just be a bad memory. Libertatia 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You speak as if "absentee ownership" is a bad thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I, and other modern individualist anarchists, fully support "absentee ownership." I fully support the right of the individual to OWN the product of labor and what he receives in trade. With ownership comes no requirement to use what one owns. Ownership is the right of absolute control of one's body and therefore the product of one's labor. And, if someone purchases something, it is theirs, pure and simple. "Land monopoly" is a fantasy. The possibility of a "land monopoly" is negligent in anarcho-capitalism. Even under state capitalism in the U.S. there is no "land monopoly." Different people own differents parts of the land, and there is plenty available for purchase. If mutualists wants free land, why don't they focus on all the land that the state is holding? Land that the state holds is illegitimate because it was bought with stolen money or simply seized. But, the mutualist sees no difference between that and private ownership of land which was honestly purchased, because he lacks the ability to discern between theft and voluntary transfer. Regarding self-ownership, one can't be an anarchist without believing in self-ownership. A requirement of anarchism is the belief that non-consensual authority over the self is illegitimate. That is self-ownership by definition. Self-ownership is the foundation of individualist anarchism. Carson himself believes in self-ownership. He acknolwedges, "all three traditions ([Lockean, Georgian, and Mutualist]) deduce their theory of appropriation by homesteading from the principle of self-ownership." And he agrees that a person owns what he originally appropriates, however he arbitrarily decides that a person doesn't continue to own something if he doesn't keep using it. Well, that's absurd. If a person owns something, then he simply owns it. There are no caveats. But, because Carson fails to understand precisely why the product of one's labor is inextricably linked to the concept of self-ownership (originally referred to by American individualists as the "soveriegnty of the individual"), he also fails to see why depriving a person of that product if he decides not to use it is theft. He's lost and confused.Anarcho-capitalism 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This non-conversation is getting dull, but a few clarifying points: 1) your minimal definition of "self-ownership" is the one that I am entirely comfortable "in its aims," but it is not axiomatic and is insufficient to derive the a priori systems by which Misesians and others attempt to simply deny all competing notions; 2) "land monopoly," in the sense used by the 19th century individualists, is a pretty accurate way of describing the way in which the state stole much more than just "public lands," and enriched one class at the expense of another; 3) "I owns what I owns" is not a theory of property (unless you uncover the principle of authority—authority of state, natural law, etc.—on which it rests); 4) We'll eventually get a serious land tenure section in this article, and we can find it all out then. Libertatia 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is is axiomatic. Unless you can prove the existence of a metaphysical moral prohibition against allowing an individual complete autonomy, then the conclusion has to be that the individual is self-owned. Self-ownership is nothing more than the lack of the existence of moral restraint on the individual. In other words, since there is no law against X, I may do X. There is no moral reason that the individual should be required to refrain from exercising complete control over his own body, and therefore the product of his labor. It's non-mystical and straightforward. Therefore, I do nothing wrong by fighting the mutualists attempting to deprive me of the product of my labor just because I'm not using it. Carson says he sees an axiomatic basis for original appropriation, but he arbitrarily decides that it ceases being true if the person is not using the product of his labor. But, he admits that the occupancy and use criteria has no moral basis. Well, then, if he can find no moral basis for depriving me from continuing to own the product of my labor, then his advoacy that that product of my labor, when it comes to land and buildings, be taken against my will when I'm not using it can't be taken seriously. Moreover, his claim that the "exclusion of homesteaders from vacant land by an absentee landlord, are both considered illegitimate by mutualists." Has he proven that me defending the product of my labor from being taken is "illegitimate"? Not at all. It's an arbitrary claim and should be disregarded by all lovers of freedom. You see, anarcho-capitalists don't have to worry about coming up with arguments for depriving others of the product of their labor or aggressing against them, whether moral or pragmatic, because we don't advocate it in the first place. Mutualists do. And, Carson admittedly, without moral justification.Anarcho-capitalism 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, let's drop it for now. We'll have plenty of chances to repeat all this later. I could respond that an-caps most certainly do come up with arguments for depriving others, and then hide behind "a priori" constructions, but we would just keep going around and around. I understand your position, and sympathize to a degree, but remain unconvinced of its axiomatic character or its sufficiency to the questions it tries to answer. But I think we ought to acknowledge the the theoretical discussion isn't progressing, and is getting in the way of our editing. We balance each other pretty well, within the limits of Wikipedia's model. Why don't we just get back to the work at hand? Libertatia 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'll drop it for now but let me say one more thing. An anarcho-capitalist would allow mutualists to practice their system if they wanted a truly voluntary mutualist system. If people wanted to get together and trade and allow others to take their land of buildings when they're not using them, that would be fine (you can even do that now in the U.S.) The reverse can't be said, because mutualists see anarcho-capitalists' vacant land and buildings as free for the taking and their defense of these as "illegitimate." So, since anarcho-capitalism would allow for truly voluntary mutualism (if there is such a thing), but mutualists apparently won't allow voluntary absentee ownership it seems obvious to me that anarcho-capitalism is therefore the truer anarchism (and the true individualist anarchism).Anarcho-capitalism 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, I suspect we would find mutualists equally willing to live and let live, and to use non-invasive means to remedy land distribution issues. There also seems to be, in the realm of specific individual beliefs, more variation than these debates allow room for (praxeological defenses of "public lands," etc.) Anyway, more fun to tackle these things with specific contexts. Cheers. Libertatia 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing explanation of mutualism on land in criticism section 

message: I restored the opening paragraph of the History section to an earlier form. The information on the influence of "Ricardian socialism" might well belong in a later section—together with the obvious Owenite, Fourierist and Saint-Simonian influences—but it doesn't belong in a paragraph devoted to the history of the term "mutualism." The reference to Gray had been removed some time ago, and not replaced, as none of us actually found the term "mutualism" in Gray's writings. He belongs in the paragraph, as do a couple of Owenite communities that used similar language, but the current notice does not seem accurate. As for the question of Proudhon's advocacy of labor notes, at present, all we can accurately say is that he was said to have advocated them, as nobody has been able to produce any primary evidence, and we've found plenty of reasons to question the claims of the commentators. Face it, this seems to have been a rumor started by Marx and some other political opponents. And, even if we find that Proudhon did advocate labor notes, he quite clearly only did so as part of a much broader program of monetarizing all manner of credit. Based on the concrete proposals in Proudhon's Solution of the Social Problem, and the additional material in the French volume from which it was taken, Proudhon seems to have envisioned a system of free and mutual credit nearly as broad as Tucker's. Let's avoid deceptive undue weight. Libertatia 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't removed sourced material. The "History" section does not say "History of the term." It's about the history of mutualism. Gray indeed used the term "mutualism." If you can't find it, it doens't matter, because it's sourced that he used it. I've seen him use it before. Of course Proudhon advocated labor notes, at least while he was mutualist. That's widely known and not disputed. Finally, don't call my edits "deceptive." I mean nothing but to make the article more informative.Anarcho-capitalism 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill out. I'm not calling you deceptive. I'm trying to deal with a real problem in the entry, which is that there are claims about Gray and Proudhon which are not supported by the primary documents. I have not argued against the inclusion of verifiable material, but these are claims which are probably subject to the undue weight qualification. If you have a source in Gray for the term "mutualism," I would love to see it. The claims in Swartz and elsewhere are not even clear where the term is supposed to have been used. Publication dates and titles simply do not match up. As for section titles, we don't need one. The structure of the paragraph is obvious. If you want to discuss this material in a paragraph on influences, or in another place in the article, then that might be appropriate. As is, you are simply making the article significantly less coherent. Libertatia 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proudhon called them "vouchers."Anarcho-capitalism 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "[Proudhon]...proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based on the mutual confidenceof all those who are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among themselves theirproduces at cost-value, by means of labour cheques representing the hours of labour required toproduce every given commodity." 1910 Encyclopedia BritannicaAnarcho-capitalism 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "The labor money scheme had a long and fascinating history in socialist thought of the nineteenth century. It was...advocated by Proudhon for a time..." Cheyney, Ryan C. Social Justice and the Right to the Labor Product. Political Theory, Vol. 8, No. 4. (Nov., 1980)Anarcho-capitalism 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "To be more exact in the shape of an exchange vank which issues circulation vouchers instead of money, to the value of the goods deposition. Proudhon's utopia..." Enrst Bloch, Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought, p. 570 (Note that "value" refers to labor costs - an actual amount of labor - for Proudon)Anarcho-capitalism 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839)."  1910 Encyclopedia BritannicaAnarcho-capitalism 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no requirement on Wikipedia to use original sources. Secondary ones are preferrable actually, especially for something as awkward as Proudhon. Read Proudon's writings on how the national bank would work. The labor notes are the "vouchers" he was referring to. When he says they would be issued on the basis of the "real value" of goods, he's talking about labor.Anarcho-capitalism 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accuracy is the issue, not "requirements." I've read the writings. Give me a citation for a labor dollar, not the mutualization of credit. The only two sources for the secondary sources you have given are Marx and Kropotkin, neither of which cite a source in Proudhon. He proposed a lot of things, so it might be there. But nobody has shown where yet. Libertatia 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no citation for "labor dollar." Proudhon called them "circulating vouchers." One of the types of vouchers was to bee issued based on the labor time to produce goods. "Payment for transactions between the various subscribers to the People's Bank, that is to say for the reciprocal exchange of goods and services, shall by made by means of a note of the Bank, that is to say, a circulating voucher..." (Proudhon, from Social Criticism and the Social Order). Now, you're not going to know what is meant by that unless you know what "reciprocal exchange" means for Proudhon. It means even exchange, meaning labor costs for labor costs. But don't take my word for it. The secondary sources explain what he meant.Anarcho-capitalism 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Riiiiggghht. He didn't call them labor dollars because they were actually mutual money, based in his project of extending the bases of credit. His project did not resemble either of Gray's projects. Libertatia 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. There were more than one kind of voucher that he advocated. One of the types of vouchers was labor checks. The sources agree with me. Apparently you and I have different interpretations of Proudhon, but that's what secondary sources are for.Anarcho-capitalism 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if this was the case—and you have yet to provide any compelling evidence for that fact—it was certainly not the system for which Proudhon was known, nor was it the system adopted by his followers in the U.S. If it can be supported by citations, then it should have a mention on the Proudhon page, and perhaps here, in the paragraph on currency reform. But so far we seem to be stuck repeating a rumor started by Marx. As far as I can tell, not a single one of your secondary sources cites a primary source. This effectively rules them out as reliable scholarly sources. Hearsay has not place in a scholarly article. Libertatia 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave you an original source, but you don't agree it says what I say it says. So, we have to leave it to the secondary sources to interpret Proudhon.Anarcho-capitalism 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in the phrase "circulating voucher" that implies it resembles Gray's system of labor notes, or those of Warren, in any way. And, as the bulk of Proudhon's work, and those of his explicit followers, was dedicated to expanding the circulating medium through free monetization of credit, it seems most logical to read the phrase as perfectly consistent with that. I will, of course, double-check the Selected Writings. But, so far, you have not given me a primary source for the claim you have made. Libertatia 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reciprocal exchange," meaning labor for labor.Anarcho-capitalism 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are lots more sources that say Proudhon advocated labor vouchers. You may not accept them as being true, but they should be left in the article because Wikipedia isn't about truth.Anarcho-capitalism 02:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done quite a bit of research, and the secondary sources all seem to be derived from the same couple of places. As for Wikipedia "not being about truth," I think it's time to call that bluff. As I've said, if Wikipedia wants to treat me as "disruptive" for only wishing to include accurate sources, then so be it. But rules like WP:IAR suggest that Wikipedia actually might be interested in improving the entries, and might not rule against serious scholars attempting to produce serious entries. Libertatia 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you find someone that disputes it, then just note that. We can say X says he advocated labor vouchers but Y says he didn't.Anarcho-capitalism 02:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good scholarly practice is to catch the crap before you put it in the soup. Libertatia 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Then we must generalize or convert these liabilities into vouchers that would be their equivalent and that consequently would be guaranteed by the products or the real values that these liabilities represent."  (Proudhon) That may not sound like labor vouchers to you, but it does to me, because "real value" in Adam Smith-speak is labor.Anarcho-capitalism 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely, you aren't going to argue that every currency proposed by someone who believes in a LTV is a "labor dollar"? That would be both obviously incorrect and a really spectacular instance of OR. I don't think Wikipedia wants its policies to make it impossible to distinguish between a labor exchange and a mutual bank. Libertatia 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. But Proudhon advocated that some of the vouchers be backed by the labor value of the goods. "Meanwhile, Proudhon was maturing his plans for the People's Bank. This was to be an institution for fostering the exchange of products among workers, based on labor cheques, and for providing credit with a nomal interest rate to cover administration." Woodcock, George, Anarhcism. p. 110Anarcho-capitalism 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But if you can't find it you're going to assume it's not there. Again, truth doesn't matter on Wikipedia. If Swartz says that Gray used the term "mutualism," then there is nothing wrong with saying "Swartz says that Gray used the term mutualism." You could also add that Swartz doesn't note where he used the term. Wikpedia is not the place for original research or for deleting sourced information.Anarcho-capitalism 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been pushing this "truth doesn't matter" line for awhile now. I think we'll see if you're correct. There are certainly plenty of indications that accuracy is, in fact, the goal here. As a matter of fact, if I can't find "mutualism" in Gray, I'll simply put in the similar words that he does use, and reference the possibly erroneous Swartz material in a footnote, just as would be proper in a scholarly article. I suspect, given the inconsistency of dates in the two sources that claim Gray actually used "mutualism," that we will find it in one of the more obscure sources. There are several other uses of "mutualism," including a couple of "state-mutualist" schemes, which ought to be included as well. I'm going to try to spend more time on getting those included, accurately, and less on pointless arguments with ideologues. Libertatia 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work and what original research is. It doesn't matter if published reports are true or not. All that matters is that we report them. The guy who set up Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, explains, "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 3, 2004) Anarcho-capitalism 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the key concerns of Wikipedia is accuracy. And, as you point out, the OR policy is there to keep flat-earthers in their place, not to prevent scholars from verifying the accuracy of sources. You treat the Wikipedia guidelines like laws, but you only acknowledge some of them. Now, you may believe that someone who repeated historical hearsay and failed to cite a source from the primary literature is "better equipped" to deal with these issues than you are. Fine. You may well be correct. As a scholar working in this particular field, I have to have higher standards than "they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true." You are extremely inconsistent in your respect for sources, although you do show a marked preference for extremely vague tertiary sources—an entire inversion of normal scholarly practice. Face it—we're not talking about the merits of "aetherometry" here, where none of us would be qualified to judge the material on any but formal grounds. We're talking about whether the material in sources can be verified, whether those sources cite sources. We're talking about the principle of not including material that displays obvious problems. In the end this is a really weird debate. I'm not sure what deep involvement you have with the assertion that John Gray actually used the word "mutualism," except that you seem to think that reducing all mutualist currency reform to labor notes is an ideological victory of some sort. Anyway, until Wikipedia decides to adopt your standard that "truth doesn't matter" and starts kicking people off the cite for trying to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate claims, I'll keep working to improve these articles. Libertatia 23:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you haven't figured out that Wikipedia isn't the place for "normal scholarly practice." That is, it isn't the place for original research. If you want to do serious work, and engage in "normal scholarly practice," then Wikipedia is not the place. Just publish your own papers. Wikipedia is simply a place regurgitate published information. Sure, Wikipedia is concerned with "accuracy" but not in regard to whether what's said is true, but rather whether it's true that the sources say what Wikipedia claims they say. I don't understand the point of you bring up "labor notes" and saying I think I'm scoring an ideological victory. That's not necessary to show mutualism as being absurd. The simple fact that rests on the labor theory of value and flawed monetary theory is enough for it to not be taken seriously. The whole thing is based on bad economics. If labor notes are used by producers to make sure that they're trading labor for labor, thats fine. That's just a matter of personal choice if people wants to be so silly. But what is really ridiculous is the idea that state interervention or banking restrictions is preventing labor for labor, such as Tucker thought. It is impossible to take that presumption seriously. Whether John Gray used the word "mutualism" or not, some sources say he was a mutualist - such as the 1910 Enyclopedia Britannica. But, if Swartz, a mutualist himself, says Gray used the term, then that should be reported. As far as Proudhon advocating labor notes, I already pointed you to an original source. He called them "vouchers."Anarcho-capitalism 22:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you understand the difference between saying "John Gray used the term mutualism" and "Swartz says John Gray used the term mutualism"? The latter is an indisputably true statement. It's the former statement that you have a problem with. I have already said I have no problem with saying the latter statement. I don't know what "personal attack" you're talking about from Marx. Condemning the labor vouchers idea isn't a personal attack but an attack on an idea. As you pointed out, Proudhon said "...will itself be a pledge of the products or real values that these obligations represent." As I pointed out "real value" refers to an amount of labor.Anarcho-capitalism 03:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Swartz said might be admissable, but is it interesting, particularly if it is false? We know, in any event, that Gray and those around him used similar language. This is just about getting details right. If you don't want the the details right, for whatever reason, I can't do anything but shake my head and wonder why you're here. Marx made his attacks on Proudhon personal, rather than substantive, just as he did elsewhere in much of his criticism of Stirner. And he failed to back them up in a scholarly fashion. And vitriol isn't rendered more scholarly when it becomes hearsay. As for your original interpretation of the "labor vouchers," you simply have to ignore what Proudhon actually says about the nature of his bank in order to advance it. In the proposal for the Bank of Exchange, Proudhon says nothing to confirm that "real value" refers to quantity of labor, or labor time, and he explicitly poses market value as the standard. If you have trouble distinguishing between a generalized system of mortgages and a labor exchange, I'm not sure I can help you. You're on extremely shaky ground in your portrayal of Warren's system, as the sources will show as they become available. But there is simply no excuse for confusing the two, frequently opposed, currency reform systems operating within the mutualist tradition. Libertatia 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is my portrayal of Warren on shaky ground? Warren is very easy to understand. Just try reading Equitible Commerce for once. It's explained very clearly. What do you disagree with?Anarcho-capitalism 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chortle. Which edition? Time enough for that fight later. Libertatia 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. An empty claim.Anarcho-capitalism 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooh. Getting all tough, now. I'm wrong from time to time, but I make very few empty claims. We've been through this before, but, for example, your edits have obscured the fact that Warren easily distinguished between actual market costs and labor costs, and that the cost principle could apply where formal labor exchange did not. They also obscure the market-nature of Warren's labor exchange. You like the phrase "amount of labor," which you tend to use as if we're talking about the simplest hour-for-hour exchange. You're careless about the differences between Warren and Andrews. I'll be adding some material on actual Warrenite stores, outside of Cincinnati and New Harmony, as well as on some additional writings by Warren, but I want to make sure all of the primary sources are easily available first. As you say, Warren is generally quite clear, so hopefully I won't have to deal with objections to painfully clear source material, as is the case now with Proudhon. Libertatia 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't appear to understand the nineteenth century individualists' economics at all. Do you understand that "labor cost" is not talking about money? It just means an amount of labor - a quantity of labor. What exactly are you saying that I'm "obscuring"?  And no of course it does not refer to "simple hour for hour exhange." Adjustments would be made among traders to account for different degrees of disagreeablness of labor. I've never said anything to the contrary. What kind of idiot would a mutualist be to say that one hour of easy work should be tradeable for one hour of difficult work? I mean the nineteen century individualists and Proudhon were bad economists, but it would overtly absurd if they advocated that when their whole aim was to have "equitable" trades. As far as the differences with Andrews, Warren said himself that Andrew's The Science of Society as the most lucid and complete exposition of his own philosophy. Again, what do you mean when you say I have "obscured the fact that Warren easily distinguished between actual market costs and labor costs, and that the cost principle could apply where formal labor exchange did not." You're not making sense at all.Anarcho-capitalism 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy there. I'm not the one having trouble telling a mortgage-based credit currency from a labor-exchange. It's nice to know that you acknowledge the issue of "disagreeableness." Add to that Warren's proposal that individuals set their own prices for their labor. (How many pounds of corn? etc.) Whether they got what they asked would depend on the "higgling of the market." Under these circumstances, the "amount of labor" is an odd kind of "quantity." From my perspective, your edits have not clarified the situation and its intricacies. The distinction between "actual market cost" and "labor cost" is necessary because the "cost principle" can be applied equally to things I purchased in the market at potentially "inequitable" prices, paying cash, or things I acquired through formal labor-exchange, at the point when I wish to resell them. The "cost principle" is a broad principle, central (in one form or another) to mutualism. The labor exchange or labor-note system was one of a number of practical experiments, embraced by some mutualists and firmly rejected by others. Libertatia 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have it wrong if you think that. Let's say you purchase a hamburger for $1000. It would then not be an equitable trade, in Warren's ethics, if you required me to pay you $1000 for it as well unless it took the same amount of labor for you to earn $1000 as it took me to earn $1000. As I thought, you misunderstand the "cost principle." "Cost" applies strictly to labor quantities. And the only way to know for sure if you're getting a just price on something is to use labor notes. That's why Warren wanted to withdraw from the capitalist economy to create societies where labor notes is the money to be used for all transactions. Without doing that, it's just blind faith that if the state instrusion is eliminated that incomes would be proportional to labor exerted (and of course that means those who do not labor would have no income). This latter position is the one of Tucker. He would be in for quite a surprise if the state were eliminated, because prices of goods and servces would still not be proportional to labor but to marginal utility. And people would still be contracting to borrow money for interest. Then he would realize his economic theory was wrong. Then the only way that to put "labor in possession of its own," that he wanted so much, is to set up a society that uses labor note. Or if he didn't want to do that he could just accept that in a free market incomes are not proportional to labor exerted - that there is no such natural law. And that would make him an anarcho-capitalist.Anarcho-capitalism 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll resolve it with sources, but the obvious mutualist response is that buying a $1000 burger in the first place was where things (and particularly the buyer) went wrong. Libertatia 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would think there was something wrong with a $1000 hamburger, where I as an anarcho-capitalist would not. Because there is no wrong or right in terms of pricing. There is nothing wrong with one hamburger being way more expensive than another hamburger that took exactly the same amount of labor to produce. Cost is not the just limit of price. There is no just limit of price. If you don't want to pay $1000 for a burger, then buy the cheaper one.Anarcho-capitalism 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much anyone would think there was something wrong with a $1000 hamburger, assuming cost structures were similar to the present. But an-cap and mutualist alike would simply agree that it was a hamburger unlikely to sell. I'll go grab something off the dollar menu elsewhere, or I might pay a couple of extra dollars (cost price) at some other "time store," for subjective reasons. On the other hand, if the hamburger happened to have been autographed by Jesus shortly before his ascent into heaven, and, thus, the seller had not simply acquired an unsaleable burger, I can't imagine any objection to selling it at cost. No mutualist is likely to think of this bizarre transaction as contributing much to the mutual wealth of the equitable traders, but no market anarchist would forbid it. Mutualists differ from an-caps in a preference for collective, rather than individual profit. Honestly, that preference is simply more in line with the actual nature of production in the modern era, and is in perfect harmony with the critique of property that grows out of Proudhon. Mutualism, contrary to the belief in some quarters (not to name names), is really swell, clever and still ahead of our time. Libertatia 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've bought a $100 hamburger at DB Bistro Modern in Manhattan and I'm sure it didn't take much labor at all to produce. I didn't find it to be worth the money so I won't be doing it again. But, I didn't see anything wrong with it. I don't see how you say that Mutualism is ahead of its time. How can something based on the labor theory of value be ahead of its time? Why should someone who exerts the same amount of labor (and I don't just mean number of hours) receive the same income as someone who exerts an identical amount of labor if one of the those individual's labor produce something that other people subjectively value more? It doesn't matter how much you labor if you don't produce something useful to people. This is what anarcho-capitalists recognize and mutualists don't. It makes sense that incomes would not vary according to labor amounts. It makes sense that in a business organization that people are paid different wage based on how people paying them subjectively value their work and the supply that's available of that kind of work. If you are laboring more than someone else but they're recieving a higher income, then you shouldn't be advocating mutualism, but simply applying your labor to produce something that society values more. The reason that someone is being paid more than you is not necessarily because he's laboring more, and not because he's laboring less but enjoying monopoly privileges, but because he's doing something that people value more than what you're doing. That's never going to change and there's no reason it should. It's against human nature to pay equal wages for equal labor. And it's certainly not an economic law that in a free market that incomes would be proportional to labor. Income for labor would be proportional to the marginal utility of that labor. The only way to ensure equal pay for equal labor is to use labor notes. But, it's against human nature to use labor notes for the long term. This is because people are generally not altruistic. They are not willing to pay someone the same income as themselves if they subjectively value someone else's labor less. People look at ouput, not labor. They care what you have produced, rather than how hard you worked to produce it. Contrary to the opinion of Warren, Tucker, and Proudhon, there's absolutely nothing wrong with unequal wages for equal labor.Anarcho-capitalism 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've backed away from the position that individualists and mutualists primarily promoted a labor-time system, but still haven't recognized the extent to which they incorporated subjective elements in their political economy. Recourse to arguments about some essential "human nature" seem like hand waving here, as do references to "altruism." One can be a mutualist—or a communist, for that matter—from entirely egoist principles. It's all really a question of where in the distribution process you think profits ought to appear. An-caps of your stripe seem strangely stuck in a world where individual efforts are determinative, while we have been living for a long time now in a world where production and distribution are inescapably social. Mutualism accounts for that social nature without ceasing to be an individualism. Your rather atomistic position seems quaint in comparison. Warren and Tucker embrace the cost principle because its voluntary adoption appears to them to allow an expansion of the realm of equal liberty. Libertatia 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show one instance where I said that the mutualist system was based upon labor "time." I've said it was based on amounts of labor, but never implied that that was based solely on time. To me, "amount of labor" is not measurable simply in time. It's just your interpretation of my words that I was referring to "labor time." And, "human nature" is extremely important. Those systems that crumble, that don't last long, as the ones that don't taken human nature into account. Human nature is self-interested. It strives to maximize personal gain. Though, there may be some altruistic individuals, they're an exception to the rule. Mutualism can't last beyond short-term experiments because people are not willing to pay someone the same income as themselves if they subjectively value someone else's labor less. People look at ouput, not labor. They care what you have produced, rather than how hard you worked to produce it. You say that mutualism is applicable "in a world where production and distribution are inescapably social." But, you're not taking into account self-interest. Who is going to run these mutualists businesses where everyone is compensated in proportion to their labor? If I can receive a higher income in the real world than from some mutualist paying me according to my labor, why wouldn't I do that? If I can produce something very useful to society with minimal labor, I'm going to charge as much as possible and get rich. I'm not going to charge based on my labor. I'm not altruistic, and few others are either. The income hierarchy has to be based upon subjective valuation of the work that is performed. That system which permits and rewards the pursuit of self-interest, and its maximization, will be that one which endures. Capitalism is that system.Anarcho-capitalism 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) "Quantity of labor" is a fairly slippery distinction, which can easily take into account "output." In fact, in Science of Society, the standard of value for labor valuation is not "one hour" or "twenty pounds of corn," but "twenty pounds of corn to the hour" (p. 160). And other labor-outputs find their relation to that standard by a market process. It's hard to see what you're objecting to, since this formulation doesn't even require an LTV basis. 2) It's hard to see where I am "not taking into account self-interest" in a post where I explicitly dismiss the need for "altruism." Perhaps the only "self-interest" you are willing to acknowledge involves the pursuit of purely personal, short-term profit. There are certainly other ways to understand your own interests, and there is no question that "self-interest" (very narrowly defined) has become something of a spook for some defenders of capitalism. The great libertarian quest of the 19th century was for an individualism with an understanding of interests adequate to the actual conditions of the production and distribution of wealth. Proudhon, Greene, and others took us a good ways down the road towards that goal. My sense is that you want to try to apply a notion of individual profit most applicable to isolated, artisan production to a much more complicated situation. Libertatia 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "output" I did not mean quantity of output. I thought I made that clear. People pay for things based on the marginal utility of that output - the marginal utility of what they purcashing vis-a-vis the marginal utility of what they are giving in return for that. It's not the quantity of labor behind producing something, and it's not the quantity of things produced, which determines their prices. It's marginal utility that determines prices of goods and services. In capitalism it's not how much you labor, or how much you produce, that determines your income. What determines your income is how subjectively USEFUL what you are doing or producing is. You can work all day producing any particular thing but if no one has a use for it then it doesn't make sense that you would be paid for it. The difference between mutualism and capitalism is that in mutualism people receive an income in proportion to their labor. In capitalism, people receive an income in proportion to subjective determinations of the usefulness of their labor or what that labor creates (marginal utility, to be more precise, but too complex to be explained in this discussion). Sure, you dismissed the need for altruism. But you're wrong to dismiss it. Altruism is necessary in order for a mutualist system to work. If I can sell my labor or products for a higher price in the market than what a mutualist can pay me - which would be payment in proportion to my labor - then I why would I do otherwise? What would attract me to the mutualist system? I seek to maximize my wealth. To sacrifice the maximization of my wealth in order to "share the profit" is altruistic. It's not going to happen. Mutualism can never happen beyond some short-term experiments because it's against general human nature. In a large business enterprises, people receive difference incomes based on the marginal utility of their labor. If I have skills I can sell in the market for a higher price than what a mutualist business can pay me because they're paying according to labor rather than on the marginal utility of that labor (which doesn't even have to be thought about or calculated) why would I join that mutualist business? If they want to attract my talent then they need to offer me a very high salary. It's not how much I work that matters, but the marginal utility of that work. I can labor very little, but if my labor is exteremely subjectively useful my income is not going to be in proportion to my labor at all - and I like that. Likewise, who is going to run these banks where people lend without interest? There are opportunity costs that must be sacrificed if one does that. If I can lend at interest, why lend without interest? I'm not going to join your mutualist bank, and almost no one else will either - because we seek to maximize our material wealth when we have the opportunity to do so.Anarcho-capitalism 20:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have "twenty pounds of corn to the hour," I have several things: 1) a quantity of time, 2) a quantity of output in corn, and 3) corn, which is either in demand or not, in comparison to other goods. All three qualities of the standard are factors in the market calculations by which my labor in some other field trades in the mutual market. So far, there is absolutely nothing to differentiate it from conventional commerce, nothing to tie it specifically to a LTV, nothing "levelling" in it, and nothing which stands in the way of individuals making marginal calculations. What differentiates mutualism from capitalism comes from another level, at which mutualists recognize the futility of pursuing "our own interests" with understandings of property, land tenure, and such entirely disconnected from the reality of social production. This stuff is soooo simple—if you can loan at interest, then a mutual "bank" isn't going to be of any interest to you. If I can afford to borrow at interest, then perhaps I'll do that. If, on the other hand, a complementary currency backed in monetized property serves my needs, at only a nominal insurance/overhead/intitutional-participation cost, it's entirely in my interests to pursue that course. As a retailer, it may serve my interests to reduce prices to a more or less nominal level of profit. Nobody disputes that possibility, least of all very successful modern corporations. As a consumer, it may serve my interests to pay a higher price for a product for any number of reasons. To opt to take profit socially is simply another sort of marginal calculation—one that obviously looks more desirable the more people share my understanding of where "our interests" actually lie. I'm a "golden rule" market anarchist for largely egoistic reasons. Altruism has nothing to do with it. I prefer to carry my own costs. It looks to me as if some an-caps dodge the question of "their own cost" by imagining that our ability to explain prices also somehow justifies the processes underlying the present system, as well as by clinging to theories of property and land tenure which are not adequate to real conditions. Libertatia 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "If you can loan at interest, then a mutual "bank" isn't going to be of any interest to you," you say. That's just it. In a free market, there will always be interest and there will be no Proudhonian mutualist banks (beyond isolated short-term experiements that will be disbanded due to lack of interest (no pun intended)). There is never a reason to engage zero interest mutual banking because there will always be the opportunity to put your money in account that earns interest. And there will always be interest because almost no one willing to lend you money without interest. People are free to set up zero interest mutualist banks today in the U.S. Where are they? Why would they? Not only do mutualists not understand human nature, but they don't understand economics. There is absolutely no economic reason to believe that unregulate banking would eliminate or reduce interest rates in the first place. Increasing the supply of money or the supply of banks or lenders doesn't lower interest rates. What mutualists think would happen, simply would not happen. If anyone can print money and interest rates aren't regulated, and anyone can start a bank that wants to, there will be interest, both high rates and low rates depending on the risk profile of the person borrowing the money or the riskiness of the business project he will be undertaking. You say you're a "golden rule market anarchist." What's so golden about trades based on labor? Why is it not golden that trades would be based on the usefulness of that labor or its products. I don't see why it would be an equitable trade just because equal labor amounts are traded. If we do this through labor notes or it happens naturally through the elimination of "monopoly" (as people such as Tucker wrongly thought would happen), why would that be good? If you an I both produce our own products that take an equal amount of labor to produce but my product is more useful than yours and we exchange our products, how is that equitable? That would be just plain idiotic for me, because I'm trading in something more useful to receive something less useful. I would have to be stupid or an altruist. Mutualists need to realize that labor simply doesn't matter. Who cares how hard you work? There is a sense of entitlement that mutualists have. They think just because they work, that they deserve an income and that they deserve an income in proportion to how hard they work - and that those who work little should be paid less. That's not true at all. That's not what make a trade equitable. What makes a trade equitable is nothing more than it's voluntary. And as long as trades are voluntary both traders benefit; that is, they both receive something more useful toward the satisfaction of their wants by getting rid of something less useful. And, people naturally trade based on marginal usefulness, and corespondingly, prices are proportional to marginal usefulness. And, about land, besides the moral problems of saying it's ok to take over someone's land that he purchase just because he's not using it, it's anachronistic in that land, today, is responsible for the creation of a miniscule amount of wealth. Proudhon was concerned about land owners getting wealthy by charging rent for farms or hiring laborers to plant and harvest crops. That's irrelevant today. Most wealth in the world might have come from land in the past, but not anymore. You don't need access to much land at all today to become wealthy. And most people who become wealthy do not do so because they own a lot of land but because they produce something or do something that people find extremely useful. So, I don't see how mutualism is a philosophy before it's time in that respect at all.Anarcho-capitalism 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, as we have already touched on a number of times, mutualists have more higher standards for voluntarity than you seem to. And, honestly, that's the most important difference between the schools. Under conditions of equal liberty, I would be inclined to agree completely that mutual voluntarity was at least very close to a guarantee of equity. But we have a ways to go before we can claim equal liberty. The Golden Rule, in case you've forgotten, is "Do to other as thou wouldst they should do to thee, and do to none other but as thou wouldst be done to." (There are, of course, dozens of other formulations, but that one's good.) It's the ZAP with a touch of basic solidarity already mixed in—well adapted to the real world (which you like to invoke, though somewhat abstractly, to my taste), where we are always already "in society," and where we are both agents and the objects of other agents. I have no personal attachment to theories about "equal amounts of labor," and I think I've shown here that historically mutualism has contained very little that runs contrary to marginal price-theory. I tend to agree that it would be anachronistic to be too attached to any of the specific projects of 19th century mutualism. The brilliance of the mutual bank was its adaptation to specific conditions in rural America. You still seem to misunderstand its character, which is understandable since the "land banks" and "mutual banks" were hardly banks in the modern sense at all. They were simply associations of individuals agreeing to recognize a secured, complementary currency, which they would back with mortgages pledged to one another. The nominal "interest" was all overhead and insurance. The only risk was to the individual members, who might lose their property. With each carrying their own potential costs, there is no call for interest at all. Note, please, that Greene (and some other mutual bank proponents) agreed that personal, unsecured loans, should be worked out according to whatever terms borrower and lender could come to. The mutual currency was a solution designed for a particular class of individuals who lacked a circulating medium, but not capital which could be monetized as a credit currency. Contemporary projects like LETS, local incentive currencies, revolving loan funds, cost-price co-ops, etc. answer a different set of needs, but are no less mutualist in character. You say that mutual banks would be free to compete now, but that is really only partially correct. The legal tender monopoly is greater now than at the time of the antebellum proposals. There is also the problem of large, state-supported corporate actors in the marketplace. With the state props pulled out from under the big boxes, and local economic actors freed to pursue their specific interests, we would undoubtedly see more innovation in currency and credit. Libertatia 18:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also probably the case that the libertarian concern about land distribution really concerns economic reproduction at least as much as production. The fact of the decrease in, say, tenant farming, doesn't really change the argument that a equal liberty and true voluntarity start when everyone has a place of their own to stand. Libertatia 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So far it's just you alone arguing against all the sources on Proudhon and labor vouchers. Care to see another source? "The practical means proposed by Prouhon for realizing his ideas was the establishment of a great national bank to facilitate exchanges. This bank was to issue paper-money, or labor-checks, on all articles offered, on the basis of labor-time expended in their production. These checks would entitle the holder to any other articles of equal value; that is, articles that required the same labor-time for production. Products were to be exchanged for products, the checks merely making exchanges easier than barter. This sceme, with its ultimate reduction of interest to zero, and the disappearance of rents and profits, he called mutualism." Henry Clay Vedder, Socialism and the Ethics of Jesus, pp. 427-428 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it's not a popularity contest. So far, it's me and the primary sources by Proudhon that the secondary sources appear to be referencing. Since they don't actually cite specific sources, they can hardly be considered definitive scholarly accounts. Libertatia 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section; Influences section needed?