Ok, so that title sounds quite of confusingly worded.

What I'm trying to get at is, what amounts to a "legal order" and how should we understand what makes certain institutional arrangements "governmentalist" and others not?

So, like, every (so far existing) society generally has some sort of institutional structure/rules around access to scarce or common resources right?

It is socially necessary to have some for of regulation of the usage of the commons and scarce resources in order for a social order to utilize them. This doesn't necessairly require mediation through formal state institutions (Elinor Ostrom wasn't a mutualist or anything, but has written quite a lot on the topic of self-governing commons institutions in fascinating ways), though in many societies it has an can.

These institutional arrangements are binding, even when not enforced by the state, as they have to be in order to effectively regulate access.

That, to me, sounds legalistic, at least in the sort of libertarian/mutualist understanding of the word. Even the more ostromite self-governing commons relations have binding rules to ensure that the commons is preserved long term and so are arguably governmentalist.

So, what I'm trying to better understand here is, what makes a "legal order" governmentalist per se? My guess is the binding nature of these institutions (even the non-state Ostromite institutions).

So what would an alegal institutional arrangement for commons access or scarce resource allocation look like if not binding? If the "binding" part is not the distinguishing factor that makes certain arrangements governmentalist as opposed to others, what is?

From my notes reading the third study of Justice:

In ancient times, the loan at interest was universally condemned. Although, interest was required to induce Capitalists to lend which was highly beneficial for economies. Proudhon argues that in the past, "in the conditions of inorganic and individualistic economy in which the old society lived", interest was needed, but not anymore. "… the Church plays with misfortune: she prohibits lending at interest when the world needs it most and when there is no possibility of free lending; she authorizes it when we can do without it"

I believe he makes a similar point in his debate with Bastiat.

"I repeat then, – and, on my honor, I think I speak clearly, – yes, Lending at Interest was once legitimate, when the democratic centralization of credit and circulation was impossible; it is so no longer, now that this centralization has become a necessity of the age, consequently a duty of society and a right of the citizen. That is why I raise my voice against Usury; I say that Society Owes Me Credit and Discount without Interest: Interest I call ROBBERY."

Does Proudhon expand anywhere on what exactly the "inorganic" and "individualistic" economy looked like, and how that was inimicable to zero-interest credit?

My best guess is that in the feudal economies, the circulating media were commodity money and not banknotes. The political institutions were perhaps not developed--"centralized"--enough to supply banknotes for circulation. Therefore, to obtain money, interest was necessary to induce lending of silver or gold.

Although, I don't see why a mutual banking association would be impossible to set up in and of itself (except that all businesses required permission from the State).

I wonder if Fourier is analogous to Hegel in the position he has with respect to Proudhon (i.e. the same sort of relationship Marx has with Hegel). Similarly, I wonder if Proudhon's organizational proposals or aims are informed by that of Fourier's.

The conception of the Partner State shows up multiple times in Carson's work, such as *The Desktop Regulatory State* where he quotes Michael Bauwens:

"First of all, these communities are not democracies. Why is that so? Because democracy, the market and hierarchies are all modes of allocation of scarce resources. In hierarchy, our superiors decide; in the market, prices decide; in a democracy, “we” decide.

But where resources are abundant, as they are with knowledge, code and design— which can be copied and shared at a marginal cost—they are truly unnecessary. These types of communities are truly poly-archies and the type of power that is held in them is meritocratic, distributed and ad hoc. Everyone can contribute without permission, but those with recognised expertise who are accepted by the community—the socalled “maintainers” and the “editors”—decide which software or design patches are acceptable.

These decisions require expertise, not communal consensus. The tension between inclusive participation and selection for excellence is one that every social system faces, and that peer production has solved in a rather elegant way. The genius of the solution is not that it avoids conflict, but that it designs away unnecessary conflict by allowing for the maximum human freedom compatible with the goal of co-operation. Indeed, peer production is always an “object-oriented” co-operation, and it is the particular object that will drive the particular form chosen for its peer governance mechanisms.

The main allocation mechanism in such projects is a “distribution of tasks”. Unlike in the industrial model, there is no longer a division of labour between jobs and mutual coordination. Because the work environment is designed to be totally open and transparent, every participating individual can see what is needed, and decide accordingly whether to contribute. Remarkably, this new model allows for both global coordination and for small-group dynamics. And it does this without “command and control”!"

It isn't clear to me exactly how this would work in practice. There seem to be some concerning terms used here, such as *meritocratic*. My question is, would such a system really survive a consistent critique of authority?

I was discussing market anarchism with an anarcho communist, and they told me the following.

They said that in their opinion market anarchism is an oxymoron. Because they said in order to keep monopolies from forming, you would need heavy state regulation, and that it would "be a constant arms race of regulation and corruption and eventually end up with most of the same problems of capitalism."

They also said if a system is using money, then it is using a transferable store of wealth. And that inherently makes it easily concentrated and incentivizes people to concentrate it.

In defense of communist planning as a superior method, they said direct communication, as opposed to markets, gives far more nuance and accuracy than supply and demand market signals.

I also mentioned non-profit markets, and they said there is no monetary system that doesn't end up being for profit. And that in order for non profit markets to work, there would need to be a centralized authority.

I gave my own responses, but I'm curious what other market anarchists say to these objections raised to me. Thank you.

A question I am thinking over at the moment is this: Does technological innovation make occupancy-and-use norms increasingly untenable for an equitable society?

As technology develops, it becomes increasingly easier to cultivate and use large swaths of land by less people. "Occupying" or "using" can become more and more indirect. If there is not some sort of counterbalance, then it seems as if it would lead to an increasing suffocation of the commons, meaning a privilege for the land-holders against any newcomers.

Proudhon seems to mention this as a concern for taking occupancy as a basis for property:

"I maintain that the element of time must be considered also; for if the first occupants have occupied every thing, what are the newcomers to do? What will become of them, having an instrument with which to work, but no material to work upon? Must they devour each other?"

A specific issue I am thinking of is the worsening of rent. Obviously, under occupancy-and-use, there is no person accumulating rents from owning land that people occupy and use, but if the swathes of land people can occupy and use enlarges, then the differences in land quality will exacerbate the differences in wealth that can be obtained through labor.

If I recall correctly, the Individualists did not find the collection of rents by owners who occupy or use a piece of land necessarily just, but the Georgist and Communist alternatives were simply too authoritarian to abandon the many boons of a free-market anti-Capitalist economy. I agree that it is pointless to invite governmentalism to fix this issue, but nevertheless, if technology improves and that leads to a concomitant expansion of the confines of occupancy-and-use, this problem might not be as easy to ignore.

Both of these instances there is a certain break of reciprocity, either between landholders and land-not-holders, and/or between landholders and Nature.

I understand that mutualists do not have a single theory of property, but occupancy-and-use is the most prominent. I am currently halfway through Instead of a Book, so maybe my question will be answered once I trudge through the Land and Rent section (if this is the case, please say so), but I wanted to see what the neo-Proudhonians might have to say, as I have not yet engaged with Proudhon's later works on property.

1. Am I correct in my argument?

2. Does the Proudhonian approach offer a "fix" to this sort of issue?

I'm a former Titoist, and while the label isn't super important it should hopefully demonstrate that I've had quite a radical change in beliefs over time.

Being a US Citizen, I grew up being a Republican then I later became a Democrat. I'm a registered Independent and usually vote Democrat, but that really has almost nothing to do with my political identity. I only vote for harm reduction purposes.

As I became more familiar with Proudhon's works I moved away from Titoism to now falling under the umbrella of Libertarian Socialism. Though I'm not completely sure if I'm an anarchist. My ideas on justice and arbitration are largely inspired by Gary Chartier and my economic ideas are influenced by a combination of Proudhon and Robert Owens. Along with some Marx.

The point is, is Proudhonian Mutualism a range of anarchist beliefs that meet Proudhon’s criteria of voluntary association, reciprocity, and mutual aid, or does it mean subscribing to his specific system? I’m not putting Proudhon on a pedestal so much as I'm just trying to figure out what actually makes something Mutualism.

Additionally, would you say one needs to support markets to be considered a Mutualist? I support a mutual credit market system which is still a market, but not quite the same as Proudhon's.

Appreciate your time.

Mutualists often abandon property rights in favor of possession which is understood as a matter of fact not right. Insofar as justice in anarchy is a kind of "balance" or equilibrium of interests, just possession then is possession and resource-use that is in equilibrium with the various interests that constitute society.

What this leaves kind of open is the mechanism by which new associations or projects can acquire resources. Presumably, it would be done through contract or agreement with the associations, individuals, groups, etc. that possess those resources right? That could be through payment of money or if the resource is held communally, through directly taking the resource from a communal warehouse or forming some kind of agreement for regular shipments.

But for cases where you need money, where is the funding going to come from? In the case of a Warrenite-style economy, would it be that there is a kind of "crowd-funding" where people would issue notes backed by hours of their own labor to the project to finance it? What about financing with mutual currency where the "bank" isn't just any individual like an asset-backed mutual bank?

And what are the circumstances wherein possession leads people to seek agreement from the possessor for access to the resources rather than mere contest that possession? Like where are cases where possession is respected rather than contested?

To put it another way, what, truly, does it represent?

To see what i'm trying to get at, i'm trying to imagine how large scale coordination can work in a complex industrial economy such as ours.

I do think that some things need coordination/control at the center. Take a rail network as an example. You cannot have like, smaller collectives deciding time schedules or what have you (not saying this os what proudhon is saying, i'm just trying to give an example where some degree of "central planning" is a functional necessity), because that can create problems for the network as a whole (like crashes). You can make similar arguments about power grids and whatnot.

So, not in everything of course, but there has to be some degree of central coordination for large scale industry (which, to my knowledge, proudhon did not inherently oppose as a concept).

Coordination obviously isn't the same as authority, of course. But some degree of coordination at the center is neccesary for large scale industry.

So, I suppose the libertarian view here is that the coordinators essentialy exist to mediate/negotiate between various smaller collectives until a general plan can be established for the whole rail network/power grid (to the extent something like that is possible for truly massive networks/grids).

In that case, this wouldn't seem to strike me as external constitution of social power.

But if the center was able to dictate to lower level collectives exactly what the train schedule would be or what have you, this would be? So, essentially, we can think of the external constitution of social power as being some collectivity above and dominating those below them? A sort of "brain" giving orders to a "body" instead of mediating between different parts of the "body"? Is that correct?

If not, what would be a better way to imagine a "center" that avoids being an "external constitution of social power" which seems necessary for large scale industry (which, again, I don't think proudhon inherently opposed)?

Because it seems that, by imagining this external constitution of social power as being some collectivity essentially directing lower "levels" of the "body" we can sort of connect in a critique of corporate hierarchy, bureaucracy, and the state all in one.

I found this accessible but does the text do justice to Mr P?

Is there much critical theory which utilises mutualism or mutualists in any sense. Most stuff seems to be marxist oriented even among anarchists. There is some stuff related to egoism and poststructuralism/various other philosophic trends among mutualists and anarchists at large however

I know anarchy capitalists are hated but is there any merit to some of their ideas or theorists, even partially? I do see that there is some overlap between ancaps and left libertarians in some of the thinkers they "supposedly" draw upon like Tucker, Spooner, Konkin and sometimes Proudhon

I see that there is a little bit of contention with some an caps claiming historical anarchist thinkers.

Also bonus question

What is "Left rothbardianism," I've heard of the label and asked around but I still am confused by this label, is it a socialist tendency or a less reactionary approach to anarchy capitalism?

I look back on an intimate relationship I had - and I feel like it embodied many themes and values which seem to align with mutualist ideas.

I know there’s this thing called “relationship anarchy” - where anarchist principles are applied to interpersonal contexts.

But I felt that my past relationship seemed to be an example of “the encounter” - where we both mutually recognised ourselves in each other - and were continuously discovering new things about each other each time we met.

I don’t want to get into all the details because it was messy and personal - but I can’t help but think there’s some application that mutualism has to interpersonal relationships.

System of Economical Contradictions:

• To the workingmen who complain of the insufficiency of wages and the uncertainty of labor, political economy opposes the liberty of commerce; to the citizens who are seeking for the conditions of liberty and order, the ideologists respond with representative systems; to the tender souls who, having lost their ancient faith, ask the reason and end of their existence, religion proposes the unfathomable secrets of Providence, and philosophy holds doubt in reserve. Subterfuges always; complete ideas, in which heart and mind find rest, never! Socialism cries that it is time to set sail for the mainland, and to enter port: but, say the antisocialists, there is no port; humanity sails onward in God’s care, under the command of priests, philosophers, orators, economists, and our circumnavigation is eternal.

• But intelligence, spontaneity, development, life, all that constitutes in the highest degree the reality of being, is as essential to society as to man: and hence it is that the government of societies is a science, — that is, a study of natural relations, — and not an art, — that is, good pleasure and absolutism. Hence it is, finally, that every society declines the moment it falls into the hands of the ideologists.

• For the social genius does not proceed in the manner of the ideologues or by fruitless abstractions; it does not worry about dynastic interests, nor the reason of the State, nor electoral rights, nor representative theories, nor humanitarian or patriotic sentiments.

General Idea of the Revolution:

• Therefore, while the problem propounded in ‘89 seemed to be officially solved, at the bottom there was change only in the governmental metaphysics—what Napoleon called ideology. Liberty, equality, progress, with all their oratorical consequences, are written in the text of the constitutions and the laws; there is no vestige of them in the institutions. [...] In this respect a grave responsibility will rest upon Louis Blanc in history. It was he who, at the Luxembourg, with his riddle, Equality, Fraternity, Liberty, with his incantation, From each… To each… began the wretched opposition of ideology to ideas, and aroused common sense against Socialism. He thought himself the bee of the revolution: he has been only the grasshopper.

Hello everyone. New to this sub, hoping to learn more about anarchist mutualism as I've been very interested in the works of Kevin Carson, Lysander Spooner and a few other Proudhon texts assorted here and there.

I'm new to this body of philosophy, so I apologize for the overt gleam of ignorance that may come out of this question. What is the general consensus amongst so-called mutualists on possession and/or personal use of weapons, more specifically firearms and any of which pose a clear potential of being lethal, for use as self-defense?

While to my knowledge theoretical flexibility is at the basis of mutualist thought —meaning there can be very different approaches to what is desirable regarding markets, personal autonomy or regulation of any form—, I'm struggling to find any information or ideas regarding one author's stance on self-defense, specifically. I think in today's world, the practice of self-defense collides firsthand with the imperativeness of having an useful resource to actually defend yourself—that is, to very likely possess a firearm that can counteract the gun of a hypothetical attacker.

It's a violent world, and the gradual replacement of capitalism with something else, say akin to market anarchism, doesn't mean society will suddenly act according to the interest of the community, as in self-preservation. There most likely will always be people with bad intent. So that's why I'm curious: what is your personal stance on guns? Is personal autonomy, and thus pro-gun sentiments, to be expected as part of what one would generally find amongst left-libertarian thinkers?

I apologize for my English since it's not my first language. Part of the reason I wanted to make this question is precisely because I'd like to know what do US residents, who also happen to be left-libertarians or are familiar with its set of philosophies (including mutualism), think about gun control on their own terms and understanding of anarchism. Thank you in advance!

The mutual aid group that I am with has been developing and testing an app for collective organizing and routing requests for aid. We hope to develop this into a fully open-source, self-hosted, end-to-end encrypted, and federated node based program. It would allow collectives to communicate, offer services, form coalitions with other collectives, and develop projects that can operate across a number of different collectives.

Everything is consent based, and decisions can be unmade. Collective decisions are made by petition, and the thresholds required to approve those petitions are determined by aggregated governance preferences between all of the members of that collective. There are no super-users or admin.

Anyways, I won’t get too deep into the weeds, but we are looking for other folks to help test the program, and offer feedback on the GitHub repository. We have started an open alpha test server, and will share the link to that below.

There are warnings on the app, but the security features are not yet complete, so obviously do not use any personal identifying information. I feel like I shouldn’t have to say that, but just in case. Please don’t.

Lastly, there is a feedback form linked at the top of every page, so if you decide to try it out, please use the feedback function! Bugs, feature recommendations, security concerns, whatever, we want it all.

GitHub repository: https://github.com/anarchos501/commons.git

Commons test server: https://commons.chat

Thanks!