what political ideology makes most sense to you?

I'm basically an anarcho-communist, though I'm very particularly inspired by Murray Bookchin's libertarian municipalism/Communalism from within that school of thought.
 
By my name I'm willing to guess most could figure out my preferred ideology. I think the economic system of a society should be a mixed market. Both pure Capitalism and Socialism have too much potential for abuse. To strike that economic balance and exist in a stateless self organized society is within our grasp.
 
So what is mutalism? (i don't believe its a word but I'll do a bit of research, more curious as to what your individual interputation of it is)
 
Mutualism is the way two organisms of different species exist in a relationship in which each individual benefits from the activity of the other. Similar interactions within a species are known as co-operation.

So this is a biological term? "Mixed market" is another term i have problems with. Just saying man, the pure definition of many of the words you use in your argument make such argument illogical.

EDIT: I've realized my mistake. Whoopsie
 
Last edited:
yeah An-Caps just kind of seem to be under the delusion that capitalism isn't the backbone of the state in the first place. the abilitiy to gain more capital than your sisters and brothers inherently contradicts anarchism in pretty much every way.
 
Far from An-Cap. Mutualism actually goes back to Proudhon. All Anarchism starts there. Imagine if you are able Syndicals co-existing with small owner operator businesses in an open market. Now add in cooperative non-profit banking. No one able to own property beyond what they are currently using (by property I mean land, not your toothbrush)

This really over simplifies Mutualism but it's a good starting place to get an idea. Two best real world examples I can give would be Freetown Christiana and Catalonia.
 
I'm an egoist. Max Stirner pretty much said it all, Nietzsche added significantly to it. There just isn't an adequate retort to the concept of spooks. When ideas take possession of an individual, her freedom has been trashed for the sake of a concept's cohesion alone. The egoist makes use of whatever is around her by whatever means are expedient; if I believe in something, it is because it suits me, and the moment it demands sacrifice from me, I cast it out. If someone seems worth rolling with, I roll with them - until it no longer suits me to do so. Factually speaking, the most concrete thing to any of us is that fact that we exist, and if we don't start here, we're probably reproducing a system of ideas that will enslave us. I'm anti-ideology, anti-society, anti-morality, and pro myself. Note that "pro-myself" means broadly and across time - it is egoistic to me to work with others.
 
Mutualist said:
This really over simplifies Mutualism but it's a good starting place to get an idea. Two best real world examples I can give would be Freetown Christiana and Catalonia.
Click to expand...

I might suggest that Freetown Christiana was a bit closer to AnCap than mutualist and that Catalonia was expressly an effort to be Anarcho-Syndicalist, not mutualist (though most left anarchists do try to "claim" Catalonia, don't we). However, I'm totally with you on the notion that it isn't the same as AnCap and that Proudhon is kind of the start of things (though I don't care for many of his ideas). A proper mutualist society hasn't really been tried to my recollection. To put it differently, I think of mutualists as comrades. A bit weird, but definitely comrades ;-)
 
only a bit weird? ;)

Yes, Catalonia is really the best we were able to do. While I agree that they tried to be Syndicalists they were forced to exist in the larger open capitalist market. That's why I see them as Mutualists. If they had become isolationists they could have been pure syndicalists but they chose to compete against Capitalists so a mixed market. But I can also understand how other isms claim them. Comrades to us all at the very least.


Freetown Christiana I see as more of a Mutualist society than AnCap due to their "common law" and nine rules. Far from the totally free market espoused by Anarcho-Capitalists the Residents of Christiana decided what the collective rules would be including the ban on hard drug sales.

However you are right, there has never been a true Mutualist society. Lacking the banking ideas Proudhon espoused it's hard to create the combination of artisans and syndicals that would make it a fully mixed market. Maybe one day, once our current society has fully collapsed under the weight of Capitalism, we will be able to properly create the varied experimental systems that have been proposed but have never had a chance to actually run to the point of discovering their actual flaws.
 
To me, a Libertarian society makes the most sense. Gov't as small as possible, with private sector running the "programs" as they better know the subtleties of their area and would be much more efficient. Drugs, Firearms, and Marriage (of any type) should be legal and Gov't should have no business in them. I feel like taxation is theft (similar to buying someone a car with their credit card without their permission) and the 16-25% that small businesses would save would create millions of jobs and cheaper products. Prior to the 1930's, the gov't was so small (and efficient) that it was funded on tariff alone, those roads still got built (by prisoners & small businesses).
In a nutshell, I would rather put my faith in the individual than an 1 size fits all & all-encompassing gov't entity. Am I being idealistic? Eh, maybe...
 
Communism is ceding my rights to another. In principle, it seems perfect but like any ideology, it's not that simple. And no, I haven't seen a commune. Jst heard the propaganda of USA public school.

What are your thoughts on communism man?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top