Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

8

Cheeks wrote

Holy shit! That is honestly a bit funny.

Ziq, you could spend a little less time on the offensive regardless of how frustrating some of these people can be.

From reading that thread I think a good amount of us should go back and read some the basics, specifically Proudhon.

4

ziq wrote

I always used to think mutualism was ridic but I've been appreciating it more lately.

5

Cheeks wrote (edited )

Yeah, mutualism from biological science hence kropotkins mutual aid, is on point. But we are speaking of the economic theory brand of mutualism hence Proudhon. My problem with it has always been Benjamin Tuckers interpretation which has provided fodder for the damned ancaps.

*edit * changed 'ergo' to 'hence.' Morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet. *

4

surreal wrote

isn't 'tit for tat' also part of social biology? i haven't reasearched mutualism enough, i have to do some reading.

4

Cheeks wrote

Also I think it's important to realize, as David Graeber repeatedly states in Debt the First 5000 years, that hard defined value economics is a relatively new phenomenon and is probably more closely related to private property than we could originally assume. 4 chickens only = 1 goat because money gives us an arbitrary unit of measument.

4

Cheeks wrote

Scientifically to an extent, philosophically very much so. Robert Axlrod did an extensive study on this in the early 80's and found that cooperating with an 'opponent' as long as they cooperate, and only retaliating when they were not cooperating, to be the only consistent stratagey to guarantee a victory. This is getting way beyond biology, and more so into gaming theory and ethics, but provides insight into the fundamental benefit of mutual aid over the bullshit pseudo science of Social Darwinism that dominates the collective brainwashed consciousness. But it is noteworthy to point out a lot of crackpot social theorists, most notably Ayn Rand, would use concepts like tit for tat to illustrate thier unfounded untested claims to further their philosophical validity.

4

Freux wrote

I don't like the "tit for tat" as people usually expect something in return for helping someone and that bother me a lot. Could even lead into currency of "this is a big favour I'm doing and you can't return such big favour so you have to do 3 favours for me!".

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I'd be interested to hear more about this.

(Specifically, what about it has made ziq appreciate it more recently. I've heard selver say good things about market anarchism that I found intriguing.)

4

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm interested lately in indie anarchy as 'artisinal socialism'. Small scale, loosesly affiliated cottage industries of artisans practicing their craft; learned from apprenticeships and other mutual aid. Self-sufficiency would be prioritized over relying on a giant faceless mega-industrial collective for all your needs.

3

martasultan wrote

As of recent I've liked mutualism purely because its probably the most 'socialist' anarchism where they still leave people alone if they wanna be left.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

It certainly walks the fence between social and indi anarchism in a way other indi forms of anarchy don't (with the possible exception of postciv.)

3

martasultan wrote (edited )

That's why I personally like it, with more illegalist aspects than most mutualists ascribe to. It's sort of a middle ground- not because I'm a centrist but because both are very attractive and mutualism seems to be something worth my time.