Mutualism and Agorism: Similarities and Differences.

[AgoristTeen1994]

This is for all of the anarchists on the forum though non-anarchists are obviously welcome to add their input as well. My question is this: What would you say are the various similarities between Mutualism and Agorism? If you don't know what either of those are here is information on them: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Agorism
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Mutualism

I'll start with what my opinion on the subject. In my honest opinion, I see Mutualism and Agorism as largely identical schools of anarchist thought, with some differences, with the two main ones being that 1. Mutualists typically favor the labor theory of value while Agorists typically favor the subjective theory of value, and 2. Mutualists are more the social anarchist type favoring cooperation among individuals, and believe that a stateless society would have more cooperation, than competition amongst individuals whereas Agorists are more a type of individualist anarchist and favor individualism, and believe that a stateless society would have more competition amongst individuals than cooperation.

Me personally I'm some kind of weird hybrid of the two, since I favor the subjective theory of value like Agorists, but I believe that a stateless society would have more cooperation amongst individuals than competition, though I'm sure there would still be a healthy dose of competition, and I personally would prefer working by myself on any entrepreneurial ventures since I'm very individualistic.

Now that's my opinion what are your opinions?

[WorBlux]

(12-16-2011 10:13 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:  This is for all of the anarchists on the forum though non-anarchists are obviously welcome to add their input as well. My question is this: What would you say are the various similarities between Mutualism and Agorism? If you don't know what either of those are here is information on them: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Agorism
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Mutualism

I'll start with what my opinion on the subject. In my honest opinion, I see Mutualism and Agorism as largely identical schools of anarchist thought, with some differences, with the two main ones being that 1. Mutualists typically favor the labor theory of value while Agorists typically favor the subjective theory of value, and 2. Mutualists are more the social anarchist type favoring cooperation among individuals, and believe that a stateless society would have more cooperation, than competition amongst individuals whereas Agorists are more a type of individualist anarchist and favor individualism, and believe that a stateless society would have more competition amongst individuals than cooperation.

Me personally I'm some kind of weird hybrid of the two, since I favor the subjective theory of value like Agorists, but I believe that a stateless society would have more cooperation amongst individuals than competition, though I'm sure there would still be a healthy dose of competition, and I personally would prefer working by myself on any entrepreneurial ventures since I'm very individualistic.

Now that's my opinion what are your opinions?

Some of the economic thought does differ, especially historically, but what I think of as the difference is of strategy. Agorist seek to abolish the state by prividing better services at better prices. Mutualists seek to abolish the state by forming alternative institutions that provide more solidarity, dignity, and security than the state. Really my prediction of what would happen without interference is that mutualism would be practiced to a large degree on small scales and make up the experience of most people, especially when transferring out of a statist environment. Even after I think these social systems best fit the human instinct.

And I predict that pure markets reserved to the large scales as a way of distributing resources and production among various cooperatives and communes. Mutualism requires a distribution of knowledge and trust that falls apart at a certain scale (150 in a domestic situation, 5000 in a work/industrial situation)

Of course we all have different gifts and desires so we should except a large range of institutions, customs, and lifestyles to emerge.

[Jace: Johanson]

I see it like this: it doesn't matter that much. That is to say, in the example of cooperation or competition (which will be more prevalent), I wonder why people don't look at it and think "Who say competition isn't and can't be cooperative?" So, I'm a weird hybrid on that theory, because I look at it like an episode of Mythbusters where the two hosts agree to compete on who can create the better test or model or whatever. It's a competition specifically agreed upon to maximize chances of getting the best result. It's not a perfect analogy, but to illustrate such a thing exists is all that's necessary until such a day when we are in the vlontrary society and can actually see what really plays out.

As far as which I think will work best as an deology to hold, I'd say agorism, because individuality entirely allows for mutualism by extension, whereas starting from mutualism requires one to deconstruct in order to operate an individual action or goal. I think mutualism is a higher plane of interaction as a society compared to a vast number of pure, staunch individualists working alone on everything, but those who weren't capable of competence in individualism in some facet or degree could not actually participate mutually.

I like the material from "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" and "The 8Th Habit" books when thinking through this particular viewpoint. If you haven't read it, absolutely get it. He'll make statist type referrences we know are wrong, but that's because I think he's managed a rare life of "success without having to figure everything out beforehand."

Anyway, good stuff. I see it all as symantics, by and large, unless I can see how amongst different terms there is a greater amalgamation of truth value to be gleened.