Something about capitalism has always bothered me and made me feel like my freedom was restricted in some way. A fellow anarchist once said, "in order for you to survive comfortably in capitalism, you will need to meet whatever sacrifices your neighbors make for themselves, to compete with them. You can make fewer sacrifices than your neighbors to maintain your principles, but you will have more difficulty in competing with your neighbors then, and you will be less comfortable as a result. [...] Whenever a person makes the decision to compete against his neighbors (who are probably strangers to him already), he is not only dooming himself but his neighbors also, since for them to remain in their comfort they will need to make whatever new sacrifices that you find to make for yourself. Capitalism seems like a vicious circle of sacrifice as it is" (tism). In fewer words, in a capitalist society, most people become slaves to their wages.
Well, it shouldn't be like that. Sure, some people would hate to lose their jobs, not because they are dependent, but rather because they love what they do for a living. But what about folks like me? I resent the contemporary employer-employee concept, and I hate having authoritative figures "above" me. I can't survive a day job for more than a month, because the office environment drives me insane. You are all familiar with what I'm talking about - the monotonous, repetitive workflow, the boring tasks that you are expected to be passionate about, and most importantly -- the annoying coworkers that you have to cope with. This isn't always the case, of course; it's rather a stereotype, but one that applies to a large percentage of the population, and can't be ignored. Am I too incompetent to find a job that escapes this stereotype? Yes, I am, although many of you would agree that I am very skilled at many things. Still, though, the competition is too hard for me to be a freelancer. And if it weren't for local solidarity, I'd be on the streets. Which brings me to the point.
Solidarity in the market, a.k.a. mutualism. As Charles T. Sprading describes it, "Mutual service in ethics might be described as an exchange of service between people with equal respect for each other. Real solidarity is established by a common nobility of sentiment. [...] The purpose of mutual ethics is collective human welfare. It is not self-sacrifice, but mutual service. It is a promise for a promise, a receiving and a giving; a mutual interchange of engagements or obligations; mutual assistance that is effective and preservative, wherein the servers are served. [...] The believers in mutual service do not need to convert the whole world, nor even a majority, to their plan, to benefit by it. A small group can apply it to members. The larger, the better, but there is no need to wait for a majority, as political parties must, to enact their plan".
Mutualism in many ways is preferring an inferior product for the sake of supporting your local community, or people who share your principles, etc. Why pay taxes for the welfare of strangers who might be assholes, when you can instead exercise your personal choice and pick the types of people that you want to subsidize? Mutualism is nurturing a friendly environment and eliminating alienation from the market. We don't have to be strangers at work -- we can be friends. If you find value in my skills, you aren't my boss, but rather -- a friend in need that I can help. Intellectuals don't have to be poor and miserable outcasts. They can trade favors and support each other, even without the need of a monetary currency.
So yeah, if you want to support the nice people that you respect and love, be a mutualist.
We are human beings first, and only then we are human doings.
