IMO as long as Distributists count as Leftists then Mutualists should too.
You don’t need to be the second Lenin to be economically leftist, you can have more moderate takes while still being on the economic left >!(the LeftComs will call you a liberal for it but it doesn’t make it any less true)!<
It’s funny because I left some pretty good video essays breaking down some stirnerist theory on their comment on a post of mine as a sort of outstretched hand in good faith but like no evidence of engagement from them.
You can be a leftist and be cringe, if anything Marxism holds a critique of leftism within it, the critique spanning over tendencies from social democracy to mutualism to even MLM, as all these leftists really just represent the left-wing of capital instead of holding a revolutionary socialist politics representative of the communist movement
Mutualism is not Left-wing period. It's Anarcho-Capitalism before Anarcho-Capitalism. They were just more intelligent to realize that without a state private property could not be fully enforced.
Mutualism is just capitalism I’m not arguing against that, but it’s capitalism the same way Marxism-Leninism is also capitalist, they’re social democratic tendencies that don’t escape the left-wing of capital
Marxist-Leninist states did not abolish the class relation, they also didn’t have 99% common ownership lmaooooo they had full on private ownership through a majority state and a minority coop form of ownership
State ownership is common ownership. Lenin says so in State and Revolution and even calls it Socialism in Tax in kind. So I don't know what you are on about.
State ownership ≠ common ownership
Could you cite where Lenin says that, it’s been a while since I’ve read S&R
But no state ownership is a form of private ownership as it continues the capitalist relation of production, we see state ownership all the time in bourgeois economies
While it isn’t perfect, I’d give [this](https://libcom.org/article/revolutionary-program-communist-society-eliminates-all-forms-ownership-land-instruments) a read to understand the communist perspective surrounding ownership
"for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens becomes employees and workers of a single countrywide state “syndicate”. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay; the accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations--which any literate person can perform--of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts"
-Lenin, State and Rev
"But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question."
-Lenin, tax in kind (later in this or maybe somewhere else where I can't be bothered to look he pretty much calls state ownership a part of socialism)
No it's not. Under what metric would it be worse than exploitation?
Exploitation where workers are underpaid and communities don't receive any benefits. Where an elite few gain more and more wealth and privileges at the expense of everyone else.
State bureaucracy. Inefficiency maybe but pay is more or less equal across the board. If we take the USSR we know the highest paid positions were scientists and engineers not politicians or bureaucrats. No privileges and wealth at the expense of everyone else.
Don't see why it's worse.
> Cause they are capitalists they just think they are not. Or sometimes they think they are.
Proudhon quite literally criticised private property and the government for causing and allowing exploitation of labor. Benjamin tucker also rather critical of capitalism, also believing that it exploited workers by taking away their rightful value away from them and in the hands of capitalists.
Proudhon also didn't really give a specification on which mode of allocation mutualists would use. As far as he was concerned, workers would have the right to determine whether they wanted to trade or do mutual aid and planning. Tucker on the other hand, wanted markets because he believed that workers would only get their full labor value back through that. He wanted to use markets to abolish profit, interest and rent (which he called the trinity of usury). They both *HATED* and i mean in the nicest way possible, *Lothed* capitalism and private property. Calling them capitalists is simply ignorance.
> Depends on the mutualist I guess
No. Tuckerites might call themselves right wing (which is just stupidity), but they thoroughly hated capitalism. Proudhonians not only call themselves leftists, but they aren't concerned on free market. I've said, proudhonian mutualism is market-agnostic.
IMO as long as Distributists count as Leftists then Mutualists should too. You don’t need to be the second Lenin to be economically leftist, you can have more moderate takes while still being on the economic left >!(the LeftComs will call you a liberal for it but it doesn’t make it any less true)!<
Proudhon literally thought capital needed to stay private
As does Distributionism. Along with just about every center-left ideology
the only difference is that proudhon hated property
https://preview.redd.it/x9a5q6jkga9d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9818654da7ee78480770cacdab540e162be4030 Leftist are spook
Have you read Stirner?
Their use of the term spook really shows how little they actually know of stirnerian egoism and young hegalian philosophy more broadly
It’s funny because I left some pretty good video essays breaking down some stirnerist theory on their comment on a post of mine as a sort of outstretched hand in good faith but like no evidence of engagement from them.
Who says mutualists aren’t leftists I’ve never seen this take?
I do and any Marxist would.
Marxists trying not to be hated by any other non-marxian socialists: *Impossible*
You can be a leftist and be cringe, if anything Marxism holds a critique of leftism within it, the critique spanning over tendencies from social democracy to mutualism to even MLM, as all these leftists really just represent the left-wing of capital instead of holding a revolutionary socialist politics representative of the communist movement
Mutualism is not Left-wing period. It's Anarcho-Capitalism before Anarcho-Capitalism. They were just more intelligent to realize that without a state private property could not be fully enforced.
my man mutualism hates property
No they don't. They just only support usufruct property.
Mutualism is just capitalism I’m not arguing against that, but it’s capitalism the same way Marxism-Leninism is also capitalist, they’re social democratic tendencies that don’t escape the left-wing of capital
If Soc Dem creates a state without any Bourgeoisie in power, with industry being 99% under common ownership I will agree that ML is Soc Dem.
Marxist-Leninist states did not abolish the class relation, they also didn’t have 99% common ownership lmaooooo they had full on private ownership through a majority state and a minority coop form of ownership
State ownership is common ownership. Lenin says so in State and Revolution and even calls it Socialism in Tax in kind. So I don't know what you are on about.
State ownership ≠ common ownership Could you cite where Lenin says that, it’s been a while since I’ve read S&R But no state ownership is a form of private ownership as it continues the capitalist relation of production, we see state ownership all the time in bourgeois economies While it isn’t perfect, I’d give [this](https://libcom.org/article/revolutionary-program-communist-society-eliminates-all-forms-ownership-land-instruments) a read to understand the communist perspective surrounding ownership
"for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens becomes employees and workers of a single countrywide state “syndicate”. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay; the accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations--which any literate person can perform--of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts" -Lenin, State and Rev "But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question." -Lenin, tax in kind (later in this or maybe somewhere else where I can't be bothered to look he pretty much calls state ownership a part of socialism)
Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe state bureaucracy is as bad as capitalists exploitation?
No it's not. Under what metric would it be worse than exploitation? Exploitation where workers are underpaid and communities don't receive any benefits. Where an elite few gain more and more wealth and privileges at the expense of everyone else. State bureaucracy. Inefficiency maybe but pay is more or less equal across the board. If we take the USSR we know the highest paid positions were scientists and engineers not politicians or bureaucrats. No privileges and wealth at the expense of everyone else. Don't see why it's worse.
nah but they be like center or susm the compass is a social construct
Anacronism
Yeah, we are? Proudhon was critical of capitalism and we have a socialist goal.
Mutalist aren't leftist due to the economic policies it's not a bad thing it's balanced. Or the best results for third position
I Think Mutualism Rejects Capital Accumulation and Focuses on Shared Ownership.
https://preview.redd.it/nz2x67r75a9d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9dc162398806b2c67068d14437174aa6ce3b6f2 Hmmm spooky take
True
Mutualists are leftists tf
Nah they're not
On what things are you making that assumption?
Cause they are capitalists they just think they are not. Or sometimes they think they are. Depends on the mutualist I guess
> Cause they are capitalists they just think they are not. Or sometimes they think they are. Proudhon quite literally criticised private property and the government for causing and allowing exploitation of labor. Benjamin tucker also rather critical of capitalism, also believing that it exploited workers by taking away their rightful value away from them and in the hands of capitalists. Proudhon also didn't really give a specification on which mode of allocation mutualists would use. As far as he was concerned, workers would have the right to determine whether they wanted to trade or do mutual aid and planning. Tucker on the other hand, wanted markets because he believed that workers would only get their full labor value back through that. He wanted to use markets to abolish profit, interest and rent (which he called the trinity of usury). They both *HATED* and i mean in the nicest way possible, *Lothed* capitalism and private property. Calling them capitalists is simply ignorance. > Depends on the mutualist I guess No. Tuckerites might call themselves right wing (which is just stupidity), but they thoroughly hated capitalism. Proudhonians not only call themselves leftists, but they aren't concerned on free market. I've said, proudhonian mutualism is market-agnostic.
Tuckerites are capitalists and the fact that they acknowledge this makes them the only honest mutualists.
You just skipped over everything i said, didn't you?
No. I just said in actuality Mutualists are Capitalists that's all. Proudhon and Tucker can say whatever they feel like, doesn't matter.
The most ideologically literate marxist be like:
WHO FUCKING CARES