Hey guys, I'm throwing out a new name: This time it's Nock!

[KBCraig]

Nock nock.

who's there?

Open the door! You're late with your economic rent payment!

[John Edward Mercier]

I'm not exactly sure that I understand exactly where you draw the line between communism and mutualism. I've been reading trying to discern the difference between the two groups and can't seem to find it. Or more appropriately, I can't seem to find a difference between the end goal of mutualism and full blown anarcho-communism.  Both seem to want to end wage slavery, make each person self-employed, etc.  The difference seems to be that the mutualists want this to happen while still permitting the concept of property. (As opposed to the communist idea of usufruct.)  So the communist critique of mutualism would be that, although it would be a dramatic improvement by lessening the wage slavery system, there would still be stratification of wealth under mutualism which would lead to the two extremes:  extreme wealth and extreme poverty. (I will grant that mutualism would probably result in a much larger more egalitarian middle class.)

Look at it this way, Bill. You know as well as I do that the ability to control property means the ability to exclude. What happens when some poor bloke comes along who, either through his own stupidity or that of his ancestors, finds himself without property? He is automatically forced to sell his labor. The thought of exclusion from land necessitates its corollary: wage slavery.  Wage slavery and exclusion from land should not be thought of independently from each other. They are the same phenomenon.  So how does mutualism maintain the contradictory position that it will eliminate wage slavery while simultaneously enabling land exclusion?

1. I believe communism is about the collective ownership of the means of product. Usufruct literally means "use of the fruit" while preserving the common asset. I think you may be conflating collective and common ownership.

2. Mutualism wants to end privilege while communism wants to end private ownership of capital. Most "wealth" from a mutualist perspective is ill gotten by the ownership of capital and land using state privilege to extract the real wealth (wealth can only be created via labor) from those excluded by the privilege.

3. Communist believe wages are expropriated by capitalists based on the labor theory of value. Mutualists believe in a "subjectivized" version of the LTV.

4. A basic income guarantee (see Jason's speech at the Porcfest on Charles Murray's proposal) by requiring the sharing of commonwealth (economic rent) in exchange for exclusive use via privilege while solve the wage slavery problem. Doesn't mean it will end but it will truly be voluntary, ad hoc, and rare.

For the most part this is the way NH operates... with property taxes (though improvements should not be included as that is a tax on labor), and taxes/permits for the taking of common natural resources.

[Giggan]

Rather than sticking to points of 'this person believed this so it justifies my belief', how about we stick to 'I believe this because (logical reasons here)'. Then we totally avoid arguments over what certain historical igures actually believed and can figure out for ourselves what we believe. 

[John Edward Mercier]

Reason would equate that what you currently believe will most likely fit within a contextual paradigm.
It is possible that you might create new ground of thought...