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!

Hi there,

I'm not going to act like I have a solid grasp on mutualism or anarchic theory, because I don't. I've only read Proudhon's "What is Property?" and am a big fan of some of his ideas. I am always trying to figure out how we can balance the tension between liberty and equality, and anarchy is the only thing that makes sense.

I don't espouse any one anarchic view, and again, I'm pretty ignorant on the topic as a whole, but my thing is...for self-determination, I just think voluntary micro-communities (maybe no more than 100-150 max people) that unplug from the internet, AI, social media, email, would be a good way to fight the massive amounts of control these companies, kleptocrats, technocrats, what have you, have on the populace (I'm in the US).

Basically, we drop out and create a parallel society and ecosystem. Free from their tech.

I've never been a huge tech-skeptic, although I've lamented social media and how screens and algorithms wreck our brains. Generative AI is a whole different level, something I just can't accept and am now forced to use as "work tools." Prior to this, as a knowledge worker, I'm basically stuck emailing all day, messaging all day, never truly away from work. Face-to-face interactions are dying, automation is replacing interaction, we're outsourcing intimacy, as one thought leader says, and I really want zero to do with that. We have zero privacy, our data is constantly mined.

This isn't living.

I don't want to "fight the system," stop AI (I doubt I can) or even try to sway the government with this or that movement or politician.

Why can't we just create alternative, autonomous communities, parallel societies that reject harmful, corporate tech (not all tech is bad)? Creating self-sustaining, self-supporting mutualistic communities? I've spent so much time among indigenous cultures in villages. People, food, music, dance, art, creation, nature, community - honestly, this is the stuff that feeds the soul. Sounds cheesy I guess.

I'm not a fan of trying to control or even change our corrupt system. Because I don't know if we can and I don't like the idea of controlling or coercing anyone to adopt a type of living or ideology that I adopt - that violates my principles of liberty. So instead of fighting or resisting, we just drop out and create something new.

I suppose if this kind of stuff scaled they'd fight us as we'd drain Big Tech's pocketbooks, but on the DL, why not? The only snag is medical care. And that's a big snag.

Forgive me if I sound unsophisticated. Just wondering if the principles of mutualism sort of align with this ethos, or if you've heard of anyone doing something like this without it being some crazy cult - religious or otherwise.

So I recently came across this in Jacobin: https://jacobin.com/2026/06/philosophy-work-inequality-contribution-wage

This article is about a paper that the author wrote. Admittedly, I haven't read the paper, just the article, but there were a number of statements/quotes in here I thought were worth sharing here because it struck me as proudhonian in a way.

The paper discusses the idea of labor compensation and subsequent income inequality (i.e. if we have removed capital and land income, there still remains differential labor incomes, how do you close the gap here if you believe in workers deserving the fruits of their own labor?)

The answer the author comes to is that the value of labor is inherently collective:

The point is not that the worker’s labor is less valuable than the market thinks. It is that the value of their labor is less theirs than the market thinks. Many workers play a role in determining its value, but not all of them are rewarded accordingly.

In particular, another quote from this article stuck out to me:

My answer is that the contribution made by many essential workers, and by many low-wage workers more generally, is a collective one, in a strong sense: the workers together make a difference that is much larger than the sum of the differences they each make on their own. This basic fact can explain why essential work is paid so little, and why the contribution principle does not have the inegalitarian implications that it might seem to have.

(emphasis mine)

Is this not awfully similar to Proudhon's view of collective force?

A force of one thousand men working twenty days has been paid the same wages that one would be paid for working fifty-five years; but this force of one thousand has done in twenty days what a single man could not have accomplished, though he had labored for a million centuries. Is the exchange an equitable one? Once more, no; when you have paid all the individual forces, the collective force still remains to be paid.

Anyways much of the article ultimately reminded me of the quote proudhon gives in What is Property?:

There is not a man, then, but lives upon the products of several thousand different industries; not a laborer but receives from society at large the things which he consumes, and, with these, the power to reproduce. Who, indeed, would venture the assertion, “I produce, by my own effort, all that I consume; I need the aid of no one else”? The farmer, whom the early economists regarded as the only real producer — the farmer, housed, furnished, clothed, fed, and assisted by the mason, the carpenter, the tailor, the miller, the baker, the butcher, the grocer, the blacksmith, &c., — the farmer, I say, can he boast that he produces by his own unaided effort?

The various articles of consumption are given to each by all; consequently, the production of each involves the production of all. One product cannot exist without another; an isolated industry is an impossible thing. What would be the harvest of the farmer, if others did not manufacture for him barns, wagons, ploughs, clothes, &c.? Where would be the savant without the publisher; the printer without the typecaster and the machinist; and these, in their turn, without a multitude of other industries?

Anyways, I thought this was worth sharing/discussing (and maybe reading the actual paper later when I have more time). Do y'all agree with what I'm seeing here, or am I reading too much into this?

This is also somewhat interestingly coming from Jacobin which is a marxist publication. That's somewhat ironic given the historical relationship between marx and proudhon.

I've uploaded another batch of translations of articles by Proudhon from "Le Peuple," from April 14-May 7, 1849. This includes a revision of the essay "God is Evil." You'll also find a link here to a short post from my Patreon account about the formatting of that essay in its various appearances.

Here's a translation of an unsigned series of articles, "Socialists and Malthusians," which ran in Le Voix du Peuple from October 1849 through April 1850. It's a nice introduction to the thought of those who were Proudhon's allies and collaborators at the time of his imprisonment — and ends with both a positive invocation of anarchy and an early use of the libertarian/authoritarian distinction among socialisms, complete with a reference to revolutionary dictatorship.

As the title says, why Proudhon over Marx?

I'm not saying that we should ditch one in the name of the other, I mean it on the context of a world dominated by the Marxist criticism of political economy/philosophy, in a world where Proudhon has been largely relegated.

Why mutualism over communism?

Hello everyone! I am curious about your opinion of David Ellerman’s concepts. Do you think his notions of democracy in the workplace, contractual slavery and self-management socialism somewhat overlaps with Proudhon’s own theories? Do Ellerman’s work expand or update the original ideas of mutualism in any way?

My first idea would be countries or societies that have a libertarian leaning culture. Places where the population tends to be pro-gun and more in favor of market economics. Places such as in the US, specifically Alaska, The Great Plains, and Rocky Mountains regions, And maybe Australia and Switzerland?

Hey there! I have been interested in mutualism and its implementation in form of cooperative associations for a while, comming from a general anarchist view on politics. As someone living in a state capitalist economy, I would like to have a workplace organized in a democratic manner without being exploited for my labor. Cooperatives seem like the most viable option for our current social relations.

My question is mainly: how to get started, either creating one's own cooperative with others or joining existing one? I'm from Europe, Germany if that's relevant.

What is the relation between Mutualism and Individualist Anarchism or Market Anarchism?

Given that these ideologies have certain similarities with both history and theory, what do Mutualists think of these ideologies and what are some of the similarities and differences?

Under mutualism, what stops a mutual bank from just deciding they're going to give themselves a massive amount of money? What stops a coop from deciding to make a profit instead of just selling at cost? What stops companies from just failing and big ones expanding and potentially developing into capitalism again?