Mutualism

[Litmus]

I might like this mutualism stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
Mutualism is a political and economic theory or system, largely associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, based on a labor theory of value which holds that when labor or its product is sold, it ought to receive in exchange, goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility"[1] (receiving anything less is considered exploitation, theft of labor, or "usury"). Mutualists believe that a natural economic consequence of a truly free labor market is income to individuals being received proportionally to the amount of labor they exert.[2] Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe these individuals are not laboring. They hold that if state intervention ceased, these types of incomes would disappear.[3]

Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets and private property in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession.")[4] Proudhon and other Mutualists believe in labor-owned cooperative firms and associations.[5] As for capital goods (man-made, non-land, "means of production"), mutualist opinions differ on whether they are private "possession" (i.e. individuals required to be using them in order to retain titles) or private property. [citation needed]

Some commentators distinguish between the nineteenth century American individualist anarchists and mutualists, suggesting that mutualists are more concerned with association.[6] Because of this, some see mutualism as being situated somewhere between individualism and collectivism.[7] Proudhon himself described the "liberty" which he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property."[8]

Mutualists, following Proudhon, originally considered themselves to be libertarian socialists. However, "some mutualists have abandoned the labor theory of value, and prefer to avoid the term "socialist." But they still retain some cultural attitudes, for the most part, that set them off from the libertarian right."[9] Mutualists have distinguished themselves from state socialism, and don't advocate social control over the means of production. Benjamin Tucker said of Proudhon, that "though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, [Proudhon] aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few...by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost."[10]
Contents
[hide]

 

[Diuretic]

When government has disappeared....something like this would be great.

 

[Litmus]

When government has disappeared....something like this would be great.

No. Fucking idiot. It still takes a government to maintain relationships and rules.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The labor theory of value was disproved about 150 years ago. Marx was the last real economist to believe in it.

 

[Said1]

The Mutualists. Sounds exclusive.

 

[Litmus]

The labor theory of value was disproved about 150 years ago. Marx was the last real economist to believe in it.

It's a value, not a matter of science. It's a moral statement that people shouldn't be defrauded of the value of their own labor.

 

[ironhead]

It's a value, not a matter of science. It's a moral statement that people shouldn't be defrauded of the value of their own labor.

And it's fallacial to assert that the value of one's labor can be determined by anything other than the market. Economic values are determined by consumer demand and personal judgements. It's pure fantasy to deny this - Russia did to their own peril. Moreover, the value of capital and resources (not provided by laborers) is excluded from the LTOV formula, which renders the entire idea rather feckless.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And it's fallacial to assert that the value of one's labor can be determined by anything other than the market. Economic values are determined by consumer demand and personal judgements. It's pure fantasy to deny this - Russia did to their own peril. Moreover, the value of capital and resources (not provided by laborers) is excluded from the LTOV formula, which renders the entire idea rather feckless.

That.

 

[Epicurus]

Lol AHZ has discovered Marxism.

 

[Diuretic]

The labor theory of value was disproved about 150 years ago. Marx was the last real economist to believe in it.

I thought it was still valid, I need to do some reading.

Anyway to the best of my memory Marx wasn't an economist, he had a PhD in philosophy and then became a journalist/

 

[Litmus]

Lol AHZ has discovered Marxism.

It's not marxism. It's not redistribution at all. Though of course, fascists totalitatarians will paint it as such. Read a little closer, dillhole.

 

[Litmus]

I thought it was still valid, I need to do some reading.

Anyway to the best of my memory Marx wasn't an economist, he had a PhD in philosophy and then became a journalist/

It is valid. As I said, it's a value, not science. OF course the military industrial complex spends billions on professors who tell us evil is the rational way, but you must ignore their propaganda.

 

[Litmus]

And it's fallacial to assert that the value of one's labor can be determined by anything other than the market. Economic values are determined by consumer demand and personal judgements. It's pure fantasy to deny this - Russia did to their own peril. Moreover, the value of capital and resources (not provided by laborers) is excluded from the LTOV formula, which renders the entire idea rather feckless.

The value of the labor is the value of the product under this system. that value may be market determined, yes.

Everyone's time has an innate value even if only to the individual himself, to consider and plan his future endeavors, and simply enjoy living.

 

[Diuretic]

It's not marxism. It's not redistribution at all. Though of course, fascists totalitatarians will paint it as such. Read a little closer, dillhole.

Yes, Marx didn't identify it, he adapted it from Adam Smith I think. What Marx did do was to put it in a different context and putting it in a different context was, for the times, a revolutionary act. And apart from that he explained it in great detail in that context. So he took a capitalist concept and critiqued it. He identified it as the instrument by which the capitalist made profit from the seller of labour. The ho-hum capitalists who want us all to think that free markets are quite natural things tell us that Marx was full of it but they're either too lazy or too stupid to read his analyses.

 

[Litmus]

Yes, Marx didn't identify it, he adapted it from Adam Smith I think. What Marx did do was to put it in a different context and putting it in a different context was, for the times, a revolutionary act. And apart from that he explained it in great detail in that context. So he took a capitalist concept and critiqued it. He identified it as the instrument by which the capitalist made profit from the seller of labour. The ho-hum capitalists who want us all to think that free markets are quite natural things tell us that Marx was full of it but they're either too lazy or too stupid to read his analyses.

You're not such an idiot afterall, Diu.

 

[Diuretic]

You're not such an idiot afterall, Diu.

There's hope for me yet.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I thought it was still valid, I need to do some reading.

Anyway to the best of my memory Marx wasn't an economist, he had a PhD in philosophy and then became a journalist/

There wasn't much official study in economics back then. But the labor theory of value hasn't been believed by any serious economic school since Marxism.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

The labor theory of value was disproved about 150 years ago. Marx was the last real economist to believe in it.

It's a value, not a matter of science. It's a moral statement that people shouldn't be defrauded of the value of their own labor.

You're both wrong. The labor theory of value is a model for economic behavior -- one of several. It has not been disproved and is quite current in several social sciences. Not in American economics, as such, but that's hardly surprising. The study of economics in the United States has become limited almost entirely to market behavior.

It most certainly is not a "moral statement" any more than observing that the Einsteinian model of gravitation is deficient at the subatomic level is a "moral statement."

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yes, Marx didn't identify it, he adapted it from Adam Smith I think. What Marx did do was to put it in a different context and putting it in a different context was, for the times, a revolutionary act. And apart from that he explained it in great detail in that context. So he took a capitalist concept and critiqued it. He identified it as the instrument by which the capitalist made profit from the seller of labour. The ho-hum capitalists who want us all to think that free markets are quite natural things tell us that Marx was full of it but they're either too lazy or too stupid to read his analyses.

Of course he adapted it from the Adam Smith. Every early economist believed in it. Marx was simply the last, and he distorted the entire concept of economics with it. Marginalists came in later on, then Keynesians, then Austrians, Monetarists... etc... etc...

These early economic models, although revolutionary, were CRUDE, and they aren't believed by ANY modern economist.

The fact is that if I sit here 24 hours a day and hammered a nail into the floor that wouldn't be worth much at all. If I waited 8 hours a day at pizza inn I'd get about $10 an hour including tips, even though waiting requires far less labor.

If you remove restrictions on the market, it's not suddenly going to make the nail in the floor worth more than me waiting at pizza inn.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You're both wrong. The labor theory of value is a model for economic behavior -- one of several. It has not been disproved and is quite current in several social sciences. Not in American economics, as such, but that's hardly surprising. The study of economics in the United States has become limited almost entirely to market behavior.

It most certainly is not a "moral statement" any more than observing that the Einsteinian model of gravitation is deficient at the subatomic level is a "moral statement."

The labor theory of value was used by early economists as a crude way to represent value. We have more advanced schools today.

Sociologists may be using the labor theory of value, but sociology is a joke discipline anyway, an academic cover for a bunch of people who just want an excuse to put out stupid communist ideas all day and get paid for it. Now, what does the labor theory of value have to do with studying societies? Absolutely nothing. But I assure you there will be some sociologist somewhere yammering on about things he doesn't understand under the guise of this pseudoscience. They ought to keep to where their stated aim is - studying societies.