Could a mutual based economy be viable?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

One of the doctrines amongst my circle is the solution to the inefficient behemoths of state socialism and the unaccountable behemoths of invester-owned bodies as the worker co-operative, the mutual organisation and the credit union. The idea that I hear a lot is the state should prod and tease  both public and private companies towards "worker-owned" democratic enterprises that would take all necessary credit from credit unions that only raise interest enough to cover the overhead costs. This is presented as the ideal society as it allows the free market mechanism and individual private property ownership without the excesses of the current system.

But of course, one should never settle on an orthodoxy for too long without probing its flaws. What assumptions am I making that would cause such a system to be disadvantageous?

[Seneca]

I have a hard time imagining a worker's cooperative efficiently managing a continent-spanning rail network. Seeing as rail is the only method by which coal (crucial to the US electric grid) and chlorine (required for water purification) is transported, such a decentralized system would quickly become a cluster.

The only way I can envision fully decentralized economic systems working is within an extremely decentralized political system. This is to say, smaller societies with niether far-reaching trade networks nor the technological advances which come with centralization (say, for instance, railroads). Of course one can advocate for a technically simpler society, that is a position I respect, but the people who typical advocate for full decentralization and economic organization based on the cooperative typically want to keep their smartphones and are happy to hand-wave the inconsistency.

Of course, it is also possible to reorganize economic life along a network of cooperatives within a national framework. David Schweickart made serious contributions to this school of thought with his book After Capitalism. However, the society envisioned by Schweickart is still organized around a centralized state which directs public investment in accordance with the will of the people, building off the liberal idea that a state can be truly democratic or representative of popular will. This of course is antithetical to the original, anarchist mutualism as developed by Proudhon and others.

My perspective is that mutualism is incompatible with the contemporary project of progress, as defined in terms of technological advance and consumption. This does not invalidate mutualism as a theory, but I find it is an implication that most people are uncomfortable with.

[Murica!]

Yes, of course. Just not with the State still existing.

Also I'd like to point out to the above post that in such a large situation such as the railways a more centralized form would take place with recallable delegates dealing with the every day planning of the co-op.

[Seneca]

Yes, of course. Just not with the State still existing.

Also I'd like to point out to the above post that in such a large situation such as the railways a more centralized form would take place with recallable delegates dealing with the every day planning of the co-op.

And the anarchist confederation is not a state how, exactly?

[Murica!]

Yes, of course. Just not with the State still existing.

Also I'd like to point out to the above post that in such a large situation such as the railways a more centralized form would take place with recallable delegates dealing with the every day planning of the co-op.

And the anarchist confederation is not a state how, exactly?

Read a fycking book.

[Simfan34]

This does seem to be the new left-wing mantra. "The whole state ownership of the means of production thing didn't work out-- let's try making everything co-operatives!"

[Seneca]

Yes, of course. Just not with the State still existing.

Also I'd like to point out to the above post that in such a large situation such as the railways a more centralized form would take place with recallable delegates dealing with the every day planning of the co-op.

And the anarchist confederation is not a state how, exactly?

Read a fycking book.

Why so angry? And really, the Conquest of Bread isn't all it's cracked up to be. Have you read yourself, or did you just get the sparknotes version from your comrades?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't think a cooperative necessarily has to be small-scale. There are plenty of large national chains etc thst run in cooperative models. Rails of course are a bit different due to being natural monoplies, I guess, but I still don't really see any logistical reason why co-operatives can't run a railway, especially with modern speedy communication.

[Murica!]

This does seem to be the new left-wing mantra. "The whole state ownership of the means of production thing didn't work out-- let's try making everything co-operatives!"

New?

[Beet]

Hillary Clinton wanted the government to incentivize co-ops and profit sharing for workers.

http://www.thenews.coop/96856/news/agriculture/hillary-clinton-backs-co-ops-economic-development/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-gives-details-of-worker-profit-sharing-proposal-1437081856

[Shadows]

Hillary Clinton wanted the government to incentivize co-ops and profit sharing for workers.

http://www.thenews.coop/96856/news/agriculture/hillary-clinton-backs-co-ops-economic-development/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-gives-details-of-worker-profit-sharing-proposal-1437081856

I only wish she had hammered that in the debate & contrasted with Trump's exploitation of workers - You would agree she had some good plans but she never promoted the way she should have. This could only have been positive for her among the working class.

[parochial boy]

Mutualisation would and does work very well, and you could combine it with state ownership of natural monopolies (utilities, public transport, even schools etc).

The concern I have with it is really over the investment side though. Mutualisation pretty much precludes any equity investment, and as equity offers the greets level of return on investment, that might reduce the level of investment that is made.

I suppose you could either have a state owned national investment bank, or potentially allow mutualised banks to buy equity stakes - but both of these solutions have their own issues.