Mutualist Revolutionary Tactics

I'd like to list some of the methods by which Mutualists try to achieve their goals here, and then discuss them based on your responses.

DO NOTS:

-Pay Taxes

-Vote

-Join the Military

-Work any Kind of Government Job

COUNTER-ECONOMICS-

-Black/Grey Market Participation

-Use of barter, as well as underground currencies

-Formation of Mutual Banks, as described by William B. Greene, Benjamin Tucker, etc.

-Formation of Mutual Aid Societies

SYNDICALISM:

-IWW Activism

-Strikes

-Boycotts

AnarchoMutualist wrote:

I'd like to list some of the methods by which Mutualists try to achieve their goals here, and then discuss them based on your responses.

Alright, i'll bite.

Quote :

DO NOTS:

-Pay Taxes

-Vote

-Join the Military

-Work any Kind of Government Job

I disagree only with the last one. Though it's in no way ideal to work for the system, you'll almost inevitably end up supporting it in some way. Even if you get a job with a large corporation, you're supporting the system in the same way, given that corporations and the government are in cahoots. And besides, if you're poor, you're not gonna care what job you get, so long as you get to eat and have shelter, which a government job may supply. Also, if you don't do it, someone else will (don't take this as an excuse, merely an explanation).

Quote :

COUNTER-ECONOMICS-

-Black/Grey Market Participation

Would you elaborate for my sake?

Quote :

-Use of barter, as well as underground currencies

In order to accomplish...?

Quote :

-Formation of Mutual Banks, as described by William B. Greene, Benjamin Tucker, etc.

Is there some revolutionary merit to this? Is this pre- or post-revolution?

Quote :

-Formation of Mutual Aid Societies

Post revolution? Also, would you define 'mutual aid'?

can you please explain what

Quote :

Black/Grey Market Participation

is

also, what is the point of mutual credit

i personally believe that mutualism is a form of collaborationism.

in order to achieve this you would have to get a whole lot of people to do it. this means that you would have to participate in trade unions (which you mentioned).

To Black_Cross and xdumbfuckx:

Yeah, the exception to that would be if it's a starvation vs. food situation, as you described. If it comes to that, then yes, take the government job. However, for those who do have a choice, it's best to avoid being a part of the problem.

The black market is market activity that is both illegal and unmonitored by the government. An example of this would be the drug trade. The grey market is market activity that would be legal if it was monitored and taxed by the government, but is not and therefore is illegal. This could be as simple as mowing someone's lawn and not paying an income tax for it. The point of counter-economics is to provide a nonviolent, anti-statist, anti-capitalist alternative to the current mixed economy. If the counter-economy becomes successful enough, then a snowball effect will begin to take place and people will begin participating in the black and grey markets just for the sake of saving money and getting higher quality products and services, and wouldn't even necessarily have to be Anarchists.

The purpose of using barter is to provide alternative mediums of exchange to fiat dollars in the counter-economy. Since not everyone would be willing to carry coffee beans, for example, around wherever they go, a mutual bank may be formed and start issuing coffee bean notes (mutual credit) for the sake of convenience. These banknotes would be like receipts and could be exchanged for a commodity of actual value, such as coffee beans, at a mutual bank.

By Mutual Aid I was referring to friendly societies, non-profit, member-owned insurance groups and private charities. Food Not Bombs is coming to mind... This would serve both pre and post revolution functions, but the main idea is to provide relief for those who are feeling some of the worst effects of capitalism.

The intended outcome of this is to create a free market society, free from both statists and capitalists, where workers can organize businesses as collectives so that all workers are paid the full value of their labor.

By the way, xdumbfuckx, I totally dig that banner.

the whole aspect of "free trade" is honestly just a confliction of beliefs.
unless its like gift economics <33

Quote :

By the way, xdumbfuckx, I totally dig that banner.

i thank you sir

What exactly do you mean by free trade being a confliction of beliefs?

AnarchoMutualist wrote:

The black market is market activity that is both illegal and unmonitored by the government. An example of this would be the drug trade. The grey market is market activity that would be legal if it was monitored and taxed by the government, but is not and therefore is illegal. This could be as simple as mowing someone's lawn and not paying an income tax for it. The point of counter-economics is to provide a nonviolent, anti-statist, anti-capitalist alternative to the current mixed economy. If the counter-economy becomes successful enough, then a snowball effect will begin to take place and people will begin participating in the black and grey markets just for the sake of saving money and getting higher quality products and services, and wouldn't even necessarily have to be Anarchists.

But you are aware of how similar drug trade is to legal commodity trade by large corporations, yes? The drug trade is heirarchical just like Wal-Mart. So if we were to aspire to this system of revolutionary black marketeering, we would be replacing one system of heirarchical, coercive "free" trade with yet another (kind of defeating the revolutionary purpose). To me, this merely seems like a system of replacing an old bourgeois order with a new, similar, if not same, order. Is there some reason this would not be the case? Or is it that this is a method of agitation, not a revolutionary act?

Quote :

The purpose of using barter is to provide alternative mediums of exchange to fiat dollars in the counter-economy. Since not everyone would be willing to carry coffee beans, for example, around wherever they go, a mutual bank may be formed and start issuing coffee bean notes (mutual credit) for the sake of convenience. These banknotes would be like receipts and could be exchanged for a commodity of actual value, such as coffee beans, at a mutual bank.

Maybe i understand incorrectly, but this seems inefficient. It seems like people would choose to remain within the mainstream market rather than jump through hoops to get some coffee. Also, if the bank issues the note, who issues the coffee? Where do i take my note? And what makes me want to do that as opposed to getting some folgers from the store?

Quote :

By Mutual Aid I was referring to friendly societies, non-profit, member-owned insurance groups and private charities. Food Not Bombs is coming to mind... This would serve both pre and post revolution functions, but the main idea is to provide relief for those who are feeling some of the worst effects of capitalism.

Thanks for clarifying. And I dig that; That's a way to increase solidarity, domestic and international.

Quote :

The intended outcome of this is to create a free market society, free from both statists and capitalists, where workers can organize businesses as collectives so that all workers are paid the full value of their labor.

You use the term free market, but what does that mean in a concrete sense? I know what freedom is, and as far as i'm concerned, the market is just the need of the people when profit is not involved (if it is, however, then the market is vastly limited to only those who can afford, or will buy.

And if i represented well what you mean by market, how does this differ from communism? Once the workers are in democratic control of the industry, a system of rationing will need to be in place (generally regarded as a job for democratic banks by the collectivist-communists) so as to meet the needs of the community at large. Once production meets consumption though, a gift economy is natural. Not that there shouldn't be a form of rationing in place still, to promote fruegality, but if we're able to produce for everyone, then as far as i'm concerned, humanity has reached its pinnacle.

Yes, I am aware of how the current drug trade is just as, and probably more, hierarchical and exploitative than Wal-Mart. The intention is to create enterprises in competition with the present drug trade that offer better jobs as a result of being run collectively, without a capitalist (or drug lord, as the case may be) skimming a profit off the earnings of the workers' labor. If worker collectives began operating in the drug trade, drug lords would have no choice but to raise their employees wages in order to maintain their workforce. Eventually, drug lords, capitalists, bosses, supervisors, CEOs, managers and so on will be forced out of the picture entirely, as worker collectives are able to give their workers the full product of their labor and workers would inevitably flock to firms following that business model.

The purpose of banknotes/mutual credit is to provide a convenient item to represent a commodity used as a medium of exchange in a market. So in my coffee example, people were already using coffee beans as a medium of exchange, and mutual credit would just represent how many coffee beans (or gold, silver or whatever commodity was commonly used as a medium of exchange) someone had in a mutual bank. In order get coffee bean notes, someone would exchange coffee beans for mutual credit at a mutual bank. Likewise, someone could also exchange coffee bean notes for coffee beans, so that they could then have the actual commodity instead of just the banknote that represents it.

By a market, I mean just mean human interactions. All human interactions are markets, and follow the laws of supply and demand. There's a market for Anarchist discussion, and so we get this forum. There's a market for tyranny as a result of ignorance and so we get government. There's a market for bananas, and so we get farmers and grocery stores. By a free market, I mean a market in which no one is being coerced. This could include communist, collectivist, syndicalist or mutualist markets, but as long as no one is being forced to do anything, I'm fine with it.

The difference between mutualist and communist/collectivist markets is that in a mutualist economy, companies will still compete for business, although each individual company would be owned collectively and operated democratically by its workers. It would certainly be easier to go from a mutualist economy to a communist one, although if the mutualist economy is successful, as I predict it would be, then there would be no need to do so.

the only reason that black markets, even gray markets exist, and flourish, is for individual profit, not collective. if that was the case, amerikkka would not be in a "drug war", mexico would not be on the verge of collapse (predicted within the year), afghanistan would not have been invaded by amerikkka, cannabis would not be the U$'s largest cash crop, and so on and so forth
obviously, black markets only greater strengthen, the existing "legal" markets.

case and point is, black markets, and gray markets, are the most hierarchical, exploitative, oppressive,and dangerous appendages of capitalism.
look at a crime family
you have your low level petty guys (knuckle breakers, the "tough" guys)
then you have your mid level slightly seasoned guys (tough guys and hit men)
then you have your seasoned guys (racketeering guys and hit men on the serious jobs)
then tip top guys who are in and out of prison
then you have the head honcho.

do you really think that a black market, which is comprised of soooo soo many levels could ever become a collective?

Quote :

What exactly do you mean by free trade being a confliction of beliefs?

i will just use some simple definitions

Quote :

free-given without consideration of a return or reward

Quote :

trade- the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail(as a noun)
-to buy and sell; barter; traffic in(as a verb)

It is true that the government needs a black market in order to expand itself, as it can and does use a black market as justification for doing so.

Also, grey markets usually involve self-employment, so I'm not sure that you can call those hierarchical.

But it is also true that black markets, as they exist today are the most hierarchical, oppressive, exploitative and dangerous appendages of capitalism. The intention of counter-economics as a revolutionary strategy is not only to drain power from the white market, but also to cause a degradation of the existing black market through nonviolent competition. I am not expecting drug lords to suddenly change their moral attitudes.

If counter-economists (i.e., mutualists) establish collective firms and offer higher-paying jobs as a result of giving each worker the full product of their labor, then the drug lords will lose their workforce to counter-economists.

My goal is to create collectively-owned businesses within the black market, not to "turn the black market into a collective."

well you would rather have a gang of small collectives, rather then one big one?

sorry just inquiring.

Mr. Mutualist, i'm unfortunately quite busy writing a report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the moment, which will likely consume my day, but i'll try my best to respond as soon as i'm able.

Cheers.

You seem to imply that in the absence of the state and monopolistic corporations an apparently level playing field would be left. The Neo-Classical theory of perfect competition comes to mind, however I seriously doubt ridding ourselves of the state and large corporations would result in this sort of (idealistic) equilibrium. Neo-Classical theory as far as I (and most social anarchists) are concerned is little more than bourgeoisie ideology. Medium size business would still exist in absence of state and corp, they would invariably take the place of the corporate bourgeoisie and fund institutions conductive to their domination of resources ect. In addition I find it hard to believe that perfect competition (if it it can even be said to exist under a system where private property exists) will lead to social equality. Supposing equal distribution of capital into private hands is enacted by society - and competition causes capital to once again become concentrated, then what ? the hierarchical mode once again ?.

Social anarchists generally agree that all large capital, land ect needs to be public so as to facilitate social freedom by preventing the re-concentration of capital. For instance, if under market conditions land became by degrees concentrated into the hands of two families then you can hardly describe those who require use of that land as free can you ?. Of course you might argue that to deny people ownership of large capital infringes on their basic freedom - however if such where allowed occur it would invariably prove infanitely more devastating to the freedom of future generations. Capitalism could simply re-emerge.

Would you agree with the premise that all capital bar (very small) business - family ect, needs to be re-appropriated and socialized by those who are subject to its despotic mode of organization ?

In addition - Gov jobs - Private sector, black market its all capitalism and people need to eat - Il leave it at that.