What is Mutualism?

Specifically, Mutualism is a trend of anarchist thought created by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon which is neither explicitly communistic nor individualistic, and which favors absolutely neither gift economies or market economies, which has been revived in recent years by writers such as Kevin Carson and Shawn P Wilbur.

Less specifically, it is the idea that society should be based on mutually beneficial interactions to the highest degree possible, with hierarchical and involuntary interactions minimized.

This is what mutualists advocate for, the simple idea that hierarchy, force, and one-sided interactions are undesirable. According to this principle, most libertarian socialists and anarchists could be considered mutualistic, if only because their beliefs are compatible with mutualism, regardless of whether they specifically identify as mutualists.

It follows from this that things which encourage any of the above are not mutualistic, which is why we reject current property norms which allow for individuals to decide what happens to vast swathes of land and property which they have neither the right nor the need to control, while thousands starve and go homeless, and we reject the state, as it is merely a hierarchy utilized by the wealthy to protect their wealth, no matter what fleeting, temporary reforms like higher taxation or welfare might make you think(which, mind you, all came only after the threat of revolution via the unionized working class, and which still do not grace most countries).

What exactly should take the place of the state, and what form property and the economy should take is still a subject of debate among mutualists and other anarchists, but so long as the organizational bodies that handle things like infrastructure, crime, production, education, etc are non-hierarchical and do not use force to maintain themselves, there is little that most mutualists would find disagreeable.

(Personally, I think the most probable outcome is that society will consist of a mixture of gift economies made up of people banding together to support each other in loosely-knit federations and communities, and organic markets, which is to say markets without the influence of the state or of artificial hierarchy, and that oftentimes the line between gift and market economy may blur or become meaningless altogether)

It should be noted that there is no limit to how big certain organizations might be in an mutualist or anarchist  society, and the majority of anarchists not only accept large organizations and collaborations of people, but encourage them. The idea that anarchists support chaos, or that we oppose rules or organization, is largely a myth, which stems from us disagreeing with the current legal system, and from a few anti-organizational tendencies of anarchism which are a minority, and which mutualism is not one of.

Mutualism is not communism, since mutualism is merely a moral baseline and imperative that communism may or may not follow, and we are not abjectly opposed to all forms of currency or markets, since they can both be employed without hierarchy or violence.

And similarly, Mutualism is not “anarcho”capitalism, market anarchism, or right-libertarianism, since capitalist property norms generally result in hierarchy and violence(for example, the way banks and private individuals are able to ‘own’ thousands of houses they don’t use at all, and which they use state force and police to protect), and because we do not believe that “markets” in the traditional sense are any better than voluntary gift economies.

It should also be noted that we are not pacifists, or opposed to the use of force for self defense of oneself, and that there would most certainly be systems in place in a  mutualist society to deal with murderers, rapists, polluters, etc although certainly not in the form of the current legal system which is based on centralized hierarchy and which unjustly punishes millions of people for their addictions.

Additionally, there is no reason to think there would be an abundance of drunk driving, speeding, thievery, or other crimes in an anarchist society, since most roads and public spaces would be controlled by the workers and communities who maintain and build them.

Now, you may be thinking “this all sounds great, but how exactly do you plan to achieve this and make society mutualistic?”

As for that, with mutualism simply being a moral baseline, there is no single strategy that we all believe in, but there are a few common ones, and my personal ideas.

When people think of anarchism, they think of revolutions, and of people rising up in revolt against the state.

But, in addition to being implausible in America today, violent revolution is also unnecessary.

Instead, what I put forth is that we should attempt to build non-hierarchical anarchist institutions based on mutual aid in the here and now, and rely on them instead of on the state, or on capitalistic ones.

In this sense, the fight for an anarchist society is not one where we’re doomed to be miserable until the state is abolished, but one where the “level” of anarchism we live in is dependent upon how much we organize, build, and rely on anarchist organizations ourselves.

There are certain things, laws and the de facto dependence on the state for infrastructure such as roads, that we cannot currently escape or take over, only evade and maneuver around. However, this is only a result of mutualistic organization currently being small and relatively insignificant(as in, not currently powerful enough to fight the state for control of many of society’s needs). If in the future mutualistic social relations were to become a significant and powerful force, I have no doubt that the we will be able to fight statist(and capitalist) monopolies.

Anarchists: Stop waiting for a revolution and start building one.

If we want anarchism, we need a popular majority to support anarchism.

We’ve been attempting to grow as a movement since the 50’s with little success in America.

It follows that if we want anarchism, we need to change our tactics. Simply protesting out on the streets and spreading propaganda isn’t enough. Too many people are brainwashed and complacent in the system that oppresses them to pay any regard to what they see as chaotic, unrealistic radicals.

Which is why we need to be building anarchism in the here and now, whenever we can, and showing that it works.

And if we’re going to do that we need to show that it works in ALL areas.

So not just coops, not just tiny farming communes, but all the infrastructure, services, and organizations that people currently rely on. We need to show that they can be anarchistic, they can be better.

If you can look at an institution that people use and rely on, and you can see injustice and coercion and hierarchy in it, than you can always build your own, without injustice and without hierarchy or coercion, and show to the public that yours is better.

You can go out and chant, and blog, and try to convert friends, but unless we have real, existing anarchist infrastructure, unless we have systems in place that allow us to live our lives without relying on hierarchical capitalist or state institutions, people just aren’t going understand that the current system is oppressive and that a better system, based on non-hierarchical free associations and communitarian social ecology is possible, or desirable.

And we don’t need a popular majority to build anarchist institutions, we just need what we have now. A dedicated and aware minority.

Take school. Everyone with kids either relies on the government for education or homeschools, but the majority of people are not interested in or can’t homeschool. But what’s stopping people in cities with large radical communities from forming community homeschool groups where parents in communities rely on each other to provide their children with education? It doesn’t have to be big, even if you only know one or two other parents interested in homeschooling their kids, you can work with them and help each other to educate your children without the state. And with services such as Khan Academy and other free sources of information on the internet, this is easier than ever before.

Speaking of internet, most people get it from very large, centralized, hierarchical corporations, and most people, even non-radicals, are bothered by this and acknowledge that ISPs are often difficult to deal with.

But starting your own ISP isn’t that hard. If you’re part of a local anarchist or socialist organization and you’re looking for something to do other than the usual protesting, consider asking if the members would be interested in funding an ISP to be used by each of you, with several dozen people contributing it wouldn’t be terribly expensive, and it would probably be cheaper in the long run than continuing to get your internet from a corporation. Go to your IWW meeting or what have you, and ask “hey, this year, why don’t we do something to lessen our reliance on the state, and on corporations? Why don’t we see if we can start our own ISP? Surely there are enough of us, if we all pitched in with the money we would normally use to pay our internet bills.”

Now, I’m not saying you *shouldn’t* go out and protest on the streets or hold marches or book clubs, but honestly, there’s nothing stopping you from actually building anarchism right now as opposed to just twiddling your thumbs and hoping one day your marching and chanting will kick in and the public will all start dressing in black and marching on washington with AK’s.

Why Animal Liberation Under Capitalism is Impossible

As an anarchist, I’ve always considered veganism and anti-capitalism to be complimentary. Veganism is just a part of my anarchism. I know this isn’t true for many vegans and that a large number of vegans are capitalists of some sort, but until recently I hadn’t given the question of whether veganism is compatible with capitalism much thought. Even in a capitalist society high demand for a vegan diet can lead to the elimination of animal exploitation, right?

Wrong. When you do think about it you quickly realize this assumption is merely first world bias, as it doesn’t account for the areas where a high demand for a vegan diet is an economic impossibility.

As it stands right now, it is hard to deny that minimizing your contribution to the oppression of animals is largely a first world privilege, and something that many people cannot do, due to the high level of food and vitamin availability necessary for a healthy vegan diet.

A very large portion of the world is currently unable to go vegan due to shortage of necessary food, and is dependent on animal products. Even poor people in wealthy nations with access to a variety of different foods can have trouble planning a well balanced vegan diet with all the necessary vitamins and nutrients, and for many people reliance on non-vegan foods is a matter of life or death. No vegan would tell someone who is close to starvation that they should not rely on animal products for subsistence. If you want to see the world one day go completely vegan, you must explain how to change the world in a way to make veganism a possibility for everyone, and how all societies can be brought to a first world level of food availability.

Now, a lot of vegans will say that the amount of food we save by no longer having to feed livestock will give everyone enough to eat, but this isn’t true. The amount of food the world has available isn’t the problem, it’s the distribution that’s the problem. Artificial scarcity of food in poor nations is indisputably a product of economic imperialism and the profit motive, which is an inevitability in capitalism. We already have more than enough to feed everyone in the world, increasing our total food output even more isn’t going to help starving Haitians or Africans because it isn’t going to go to them. And, even if everyone in the world did have access to grains or soybeans, you need much more than that to prosper on a diet free from animal products.

The issue is clearly sociopolitical, and it’s unlikely that any amount of reforms within capitalism will bring every society up to a 1st world level of food availability any time in the near future, because in capitalism food goes to whomever can afford it. If a country can’t produce enough food on its own or afford to import food from other countries, it starves.(Sorry, drought stricken third world nations. Here, have a ridiculously meager amount of bread from the UN.)

The only logical conclusion is that to support veganism you must also have a solution to food scarcity in poor nations. And(wouldn’t you know it!) the most plausible, possibly the only plausible solution is to dramatically alter our system of food production so that the profit motive no longer prevents excess food from being shipped to places where it is most needed, and so that food production is internationally fixed in a way so that everyone is given a fair share and over-producing areas share with under-producing areas regardless of the resources or capital available to each of them.

IE, a non-capitalist resource based economy.