Comments on Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism: Announcing: The Solidarity Economy Network

Thanks for the comment, Alex.I've got an old manus...

2007-10-18T14:19:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the comment, Alex.

I've got an old manuscript I never digitized that addresses some of your points ("Getting Right with the Petty Bourgeoisie"). I fully agree that any movement to build a new society within the shell of the old has to be supplemented with action to defend against state aggression. The article I wrote used, as a starting point, De Leon's argument for two parallel tracks of industrial unionism and parliamentary politics. If workers seized the state alone, he said, employers might stage a capital strike/lockout. On the other hand if workers seized control of industry, they might be vulnerable to counter-revolution from the "commanding heights" of the state. I added in the article that those two tracks had to be supplemented by a third parallel track: an armed self-defense movement, like the workers' militias that repelled Franco's coup in 1936.

My thoughts on things like this solidarity network...

2007-10-17T23:23:00.000-07:00

My thoughts on things like this solidarity network:

This is what I've considered a big part of revolutionary strategy for a long time..for the anarchist movements and the larger anti-capitalist/anti-state movements.

Dual power/alternative economy of non-hierarchical organizations that network and become able to defend themselves and each other from the inevitable state repression that will accompany any serious threat to the ruling class.

Collectives, coops, individual producers (etc.) that sell at cost and/or build a gift economy.

There's no reason why collectives, communes, cooperatives, and self-employed people cannot exhange goods, services & solidarity.

BUT, I really do feel this has to be accompanyied by direct action and resistance to the state & corporations - protest and strike are necessary too, and eventually armed defense of the movement/communities if in fact a long-term cultural movement becomes successfull and strong.

Anti-marxists of all people should know that the state isn't going to wither away or become irrelevant without putting up a bitter, ruthless fight, in whatever form it's in.

History has shown that the ruling class will almost certainly turn to fascism to protect its priviledge from any strong movement that's making too many serious gains/threats against it.

So a large network could be rolled back and smashed eventually, if it is not able to defend itself and win the sympathies of enough people.

-Alex

See the following for an explanaton of the key dif...

2007-09-15T06:53:00.000-07:00

See the following for an explanaton of the key difference between a kibbutz (collective) and a moshav (the Israeli term for a cooperative community).

http://nvnv.essortment.com/whatiskibbutz_rghm.htm

I agree, ADA. But surely there is a large element...

2007-09-10T12:22:00.000-07:00

I agree, ADA. But surely there is a large element of betrayal on the personal level involved in Blair's shift from an earlier quasi-distributist orientation to his position until recently as the main representative for Hudge. He had to make some personal decisions to put himself at the head of the parade in pushing all the police state changes Britain has undergone in the past ten years: the suppression of common law due process in favor of administrative law under the EU; the cameras everywhere; the ASBO orders; the increasing periods of detention permissible without charge, etc. He didn't singlehandedly turn Britain into something out of Anthony Burgess, but he made the decision to lead the change.

In reference to the disappointment that Blair prov...

2007-09-09T19:11:00.000-07:00

In reference to the disappointment that Blair proved to be to those who epouse the values of Christian Socialism and cooperativism...I think it is too much to expect that the mere presence of a politician holding a certain set of values, Christian Socialism and coopertivism for example, can do all that much to steer the ship of state toward those values, especially in the absence of a mass social movement that is bent on building the kind of dual power that Kevin Carson has commented upon from time to time.

Or in other words, our best leadership is needed not at Westminister, DC or Ottawa, it is needed on the ground building regional networks, firms and new communities as well as a countervailing marketing infrastructure.

I'm not too familiar with British politics. I've ...

2007-09-03T17:22:00.000-07:00

I'm not too familiar with British politics. I've heard that Brown, with his more blue collar social roots, is a bit closer to Labour's SD tradition than to Blair's "third way." But in recent years, as Chancellor of the Exchequer (sp?), he's been identified as a sort of British Jeffrey Sachs or Robert Rubin, promoting a neoliberal version of "free markets."

I don't know much about the recent history of the Co-op party either, but I suspect their current close ties to Labour result from Tony Blair's original background as a Christian socialist/distributist, and the amount of their rhetoric he coopted in his "third way" rhetoric. I know some distributists had high hopes for Blair's third way in the early days of Nulab, much as the Nashville agrarians looked for signs of hope in the New Deal. For example Race Matthews, author of Jobs of Our Own, expressed considerable hope in Blair when he wrote the book in the '90s. Just goes to show "put not your trust in princes," I guess.

Thank you, Kevin. Do you think Labour Party is rea...

2007-09-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Kevin. Do you think Labour Party is really promoting co-ops and mutuals in Britain?

Is it possible that Brown, the new Labour leader, leads his party to a new more "mutualist" and less statist alternative?

If this kind of strategy is not part of Labour Party's goals, so what is the reason of the alliance between the Co-op Party and Labour?

Anonymous,My website is devoted to alternatives to...

2007-09-03T11:26:00.000-07:00

Anonymous,

My website is devoted to alternatives to *capitalism*, not alternatives to the free market. I consider them two different things. And as Ian S. said, they're all alternatives to the state capitalist system based on voluntary cooperation.

Although I'm quite friendly to kibbutzim and other intentional communities as a form of such cooperation, my main interest is in worker-owned and -managed firms. If such efforts are "collectivist," then so are those remarkable monuments to collectivism and central planning--the corporation. You know, entities whose tangible property is entirely owned by a fictional collective entity legally separate from any or all of the shareholders, and subject to the absolute managerial control of the self-perpetuating oligarchy in charge of that fictional collective entity. Entities whose employees' actions are expected to be governed by the values of obedience within a hierarchy, rather than personal interest (ever hear of the agency problem?).

Your misuse of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is a strawman, like asking "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Foreign mutualist,

I was interested in some of the material at the Co-op Party website, but I've got to tell you I was horrified to see Tony Blair's visage leering down from the top of the page. And far too much of their policy agenda seems to involve an activist state promoting cooperatives and mutuals as some sort of "Third Way" within a larger framework that splits the difference between social democracy and neoliberalism.

Now a day global warming controversy is very hype....

2007-09-03T03:52:00.000-07:00

Now a day global warming controversy is very hype. NASA sciencetists completely work on global warming research. According the sciencetists after 30 year earth is completely effected by global warming.

Kevin:What do you think about the british Co-opera...

2007-09-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

Kevin:

What do you think about the british Co-operative Party and its alignment with Labour Party?

Do you have an opinion about this Party's ideology or praxis?

Foreign mutualist

No true Scotsman would doubt mutualism, eh decentr...

2007-09-02T09:22:00.000-07:00

No true Scotsman would doubt mutualism, eh decentralist? :)

That's not a "No true scotsman" defense, and you know it. Cooperatives are not collectives, and they have no interest in running your life. Does Ocean Spray tell its members when to get up in the morning and when to go to bed? No? Of course not.
Mutualism is a wholly different philosophy than Communism.

I recommend reading up on Kevin's ideas and the id...

2007-09-01T21:10:00.000-07:00

I recommend reading up on Kevin's ideas and the ideas of others in the movement if you don't want to be accused of simply whipping a strawman.

No true Scotsman would doubt mutualism, eh decentralist? :)

Anon.,You're confusing cooperatives with collectiv...

2007-09-01T20:00:00.000-07:00

Anon.,

You're confusing cooperatives with collectives. Your comments really do have little to do with mutualism/individualist anarchism, as Ian Stewart's comment illustrates. Then again, if people voluntary choose to join collectives, that's their business.

I recommend reading up on Kevin's ideas and the ideas of others in the movement if you don't want to be accused of simply whipping a strawman.

Why the kibbutz as the example, rather than Emilia...

2007-09-01T18:43:00.000-07:00

Why the kibbutz as the example, rather than Emilia Romagna or Mondragon?

As far as I know the Kibbutzim were the largest cooperative experiment so far, in terms of size and history (obviously discounting the Soviet Union, etc). Since Kevin prizes the cooperative over the capitalist firm as both morally and practically superior, it seemed like a good choice.

Why the kibbutz as the example, rather than Emilia...

2007-09-01T18:28:00.000-07:00

Why the kibbutz as the example, rather than Emilia Romagna or Mondragon?

Huh? His entire website is devoted to individualis...

2007-09-01T17:35:00.000-07:00

Huh? His entire website is devoted to individualist alternatives to state capitalism, not alternative systems in which the individual must knuckle under to "leadership committees" and the like in all aspects of economic life. The primacy of the collective over the individual was the biggest factor in the failure of the kibbutzim, just as it was in the Soviet Union, and it's no surprise that the surviving kibbutzim were able to adapt themselves to the corporate form. I really don't think you've read Mr. Carson's writings closely enough to understand them.

True, but the kibbutzes receieved tons of public s...

2007-09-01T16:05:00.000-07:00

True, but the kibbutzes receieved tons of public subsidies and still went capitalist. It's interesting that you bring up the Soviet Union; apparently its demise substantially discouraged the "socialist spirit" of the kibbutzniks, whether rightly or wrongly.

There's your answer. That's why it failed: ideology that goes against the grain of human nature. But when has Kevin (or any other mutualist) ever advocvated any of these practices?

His entire website is devoted to alternatives to capitalism. :)
Also, this just begs the natural response: Why don't cooperatives go against the grain of human nature? Not all the kibbutz problems stemmed from mothers breastfeeding other mothers' babies. For example the kibbutzim accepted tons of government bailout money, and then in the 70s many were forced to hire outside workers and pay them a wage! Now I suppose you could argue that the "capitalist structural factors" of 1940s-1960s Israel were to blame for the failure of the Kibbutzim, but as far as I can tell that's not the case.

Anon,Charles Pooter and Bill G beat me to part of ...

2007-09-01T11:43:00.000-07:00

Anon,

Charles Pooter and Bill G beat me to part of my answer, on excessive degrees of collectivism within intentional communities. This is not a necessary quality of such endeavors.

More generally, your criticism of cooperatives based on their failure to thrive in a corporate economy seems to beg the question. Think a minute: if somebody said something like "If your capitalist corporations are so efficient, then why did they do so badly in the Soviet planned economy?", you'd think he was pretty stupid, wouldn't you? Obviously there were structural factors at play in the Soviet system that favored the success of state enterprises against private competition.

Yes, as the great mutualist Josiah Warren pointed ...

2007-08-31T04:54:00.000-07:00

Yes, as the great mutualist Josiah Warren pointed out after leaving through the New Harmony commune failure.

His next mutualist experiment was the Cincinnati "time store" which proved to be a resounding success.

Collective agriculture, no private property, no wa...

2007-08-31T02:06:00.000-07:00

Collective agriculture, no private property, no wages or investment, communal child-rearing, the works (mothers even brest-fed other mothers' babies!)

There's your answer. That's why it failed: ideology that goes against the grain of human nature. But when has Kevin (or any other mutualist) ever advocvated any of these practices? You'd be good on a kibbutz amongst the scarecrows and other straw-men...

I just finished reading the history of the largest...

2007-08-30T19:35:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading the history of the largest secular collectivist economic movement ever - the kibbutzim of Israel. They tried all this cooperative and lefty stuff starting in the 20s: Collective agriculture, no private property, no wages or investment, communal child-rearing, the works (mothers even brest-fed other mothers' babies!). Starting around the 70s, they ended up hiring foreign workers, industrializing, and now today some are even listed on the NASDAQ! Here's a description of some of their activities from wikipedia:

The communal life was naturally hard for some people. Every kibbutz saw new members quit after a few years. Since kibbutzniks had no individual bank accounts, any purchase that could not be made at the kibbutz canteen had to be approved by a committee, a potentially humiliating experience. Kibbutzim also had their share of members who were not hard workers, or who abused common property; there would always be resentment against these "parasites." ...
Although major decisions about the future of the kibbutz were made by consensus or by voting, day-to-day decisions about where people would work were made by elected leaders. Typically, kibbutzniks would learn their assignments by reading an assignment sheet.

By the 1970s they even began to "exploit" workers by hiring non-jews to do agricultural or factory labor during periods of high demand, but not allowing these workers to join the Kibbutzim. Most of the Kibbutzim had to take extensive government subsidies or else turn to capitalist projects like factories and stock market investment to survive. Judging from the accounts of current Kibbutz residents, the whole "socialist impulse" is gone and now Kibbutzes are more like small communities than paragons of egalitarian, anti-capitalist virtue.

In short, it looks like democratic socialist cooperative businesses are not that great, and even if they become sustainable people just don't seem to be that crazy about them. Why should people believe that your ideas about cooperatives and mutualism will work and will be popular with people when the largest ever (non-Stalinist) collectivization experiment basically failed and went capitalist?