Mutualism (Economic)

The "cost principle" or "cost the limit of price"

Mutualists believe that most of the economic problems associated with capitalism come back to a violation of the cost principle, or as Josiah Warren interchangeably called it "Cost the limit of price." It was inspired by the labor theory of value, popularized, though not invented, by Adam Smith in 1776 --Proudhon mentions Smith as an inspiration. The labor theory of value holds that the actual price of a thing (or the "true cost") is the amount of labor that was undertaken to produce it. P

roudhon and Warren, working without association or apparent knowledge of each other, accepting this axiom, drew from this the conclusion that it is therefore unethical to charge higher price for a thing than the amount of labor that was undertaken to produce it. In Warren's terms, cost should be the "limit of price." Anyone who sells goods should charge no more than the cost to himself of acquiring these goods. As far as determining payment for goods, they should pay for those goods with an equivalent amount of labor lest they violate the cost principle. In terms of employment, an employer should not be paid unless he labors, and if he labors less than an employee then he should be paid less than that employee.

Therefore, if the cost principle is followed, profit to an employer through the labor of others is not possible --everyone receives the "full produce" of his own labor and receives no produce of the labor of another unless he pays with an equivalent amount of labor. Warren says that this is in contrast to "Value the limit of price" where the only limit to price is the highest amount someone is willing to pay for a thing based on his own subjective valuation.

I like this theory because it should cut down the exploitation of workers significantly, because what corporations do now is just go to africa/south america or a third world country then make them work for long hours for a few dollars then come to America and sell it for much much more. They did nothing but exploit the workers but still made huge profit - another reason why they kill Union Organizers

What you think?

Mutual credit

Mutualists believe that free banking should be taken back by the people to establish systems of free credit. They contend that banks have a monopoly on credit, just as capitalists have a monopoly on land. Banks are essentially creating money by lending out deposits that do not actually belong to them, then charging interest on the difference. Mutualists believe that by establishing a democratically run mutual bank or credit union, it would be possible to issue free credit so that money could be created for the benefit of the participants rather than for the benefit of the bankers. Individualist anarchists noted for their detailed views on mutualist banking include Proudhon, William B. Greene, and Lysander Spooner.

Quote :

What you think?

All mutualists and anarcho-individualists I've come in contact with despise corporations - excerpt "anarcho-"capitalists, but they're another group entirely. Multi-national corporations under mutualism would be an impossibility since 1.) land use derives from use and occupancy not forceful ownership and 2.) the subsidization and incorporation benefits which strengthen investor confidence would no longer be plausible. Large scale production would be handled by cooperatives.

Of course I also believe - from there - that most of society would organize itself in the form of collectives and communes.

Prefx wrote:

Quote :

What you think?

All mutualists and anarcho-individualists I've come in contact with despise corporations - excerpt "anarcho-"capitalists, but they're another group entirely. Multi-national corporations under mutualism would be an impossibility since 1.) land use derives from use and occupancy not forceful ownership and 2.) the subsidization and incorporation benefits which strengthen investor confidence would no longer be plausible. Large scale production would be handled by cooperatives.

Of course I also believe - from there - that most of society would organize itself in the form of collectives and communes.

do you mean corporations will be collectivelly owned kind of not by a few people?

I don't think corporations will exist outside of very small, unrecognizable examples. There wouldn't be any incorporation benefits like limited liability and personhood status; there wouldn't even be a "stock market" to talk of. At most in a free anarchist market major firms would be run by the workers.

But as I said I believe people will gravitate towards communist and collectivist associations instead.

Prefx wrote:

I don't think corporations will exist outside of very small, unrecognizable examples. There wouldn't be any incorporation benefits like limited liability and personhood status; there wouldn't even be a "stock market" to talk of. At most in a free anarchist market major firms would be run by the workers.

But as I said I believe people will gravitate towards communist and collectivist associations instead.

Ya oddly enough people that thought of mutualism suggested it to be "anti capitalist free market theory" I wonder if it could be used to replace planned economy in some countries....

Isaiah wrote:

Prefx wrote:

I don't think corporations will exist outside of very small, unrecognizable examples. There wouldn't be any incorporation benefits like limited liability and personhood status; there wouldn't even be a "stock market" to talk of. At most in a free anarchist market major firms would be run by the workers.

But as I said I believe people will gravitate towards communist and collectivist associations instead.

Ya oddly enough people that thought of mutualism suggested it to be "anti capitalist free market theory" I wonder if it could be used to replace planned economy in some countries....

I always thought about this.. For example, a group of people could set up a mutualist market to undermine the furtherance of capitalism while still using a market.

Cheveyo wrote:

Isaiah wrote:

Prefx wrote:

I don't think corporations will exist outside of very small, unrecognizable examples. There wouldn't be any incorporation benefits like limited liability and personhood status; there wouldn't even be a "stock market" to talk of. At most in a free anarchist market major firms would be run by the workers.

But as I said I believe people will gravitate towards communist and collectivist associations instead.

Ya oddly enough people that thought of mutualism suggested it to be "anti capitalist free market theory" I wonder if it could be used to replace planned economy in some countries....

I always thought about this.. For example, a group of people could set up a mutualist market to undermine the furtherance of capitalism while still using a market.

Maybe...but the free market has never been 'free" it's always been manipulated so that's a long shot I'm looking into participatory economics at the moment it's not planned economy but it's pass free market idea...post capitalist too good part about it