
What is Mutualism?
published by the Vanguard Press
April, 1927.  
	 
	MUTUALISM-A Social System Based on Equal
	Freedom, Reciprocity, and the  Sovereignty of
	the Individual Over Himself, His Affairs, and
	His Products,  Realized Through Individual
	Initiative, Free Contract, Cooperation, 
	Competition, and Voluntary Association for
	Defense Against the Invasive  and for the
	Protection of Life, Liberty and Property of the
	Non-invasive.
	
	
	PUBLISHER'S PREFACE
	
	This book is one of a series of Outlines of
	Social Philosophies published by  the Vanguard
	Press. In publishing these outlines the Press
	has offered to  each definitely crystallized
	social movement the privilege of telling its 
	own story and presenting as cogently as
	possible the arguments which  support its
	social philosophy. Each group arranged to have
	the material  prepared in the way that seemed
	most suitable to it. All the outlines  follow
	the same plan, so that the student of social
	philosophy will find it  possible to make exact
	comparisons between any one and the others. The
	 Mutualist Associates assumed responsibility
	for all arrangements  covering this book and
	collaborated with Mr. Swartz in its
	preparation. As  it is now published it has the
	approval of important Mutualist and 
	Libertarian groups in the United States,
	particularly the following:
	
	The Mutualist associates 
	The Libertarian League
	Foundation for Financial Research 
	Mutual Credit League 
	The Mutualist (E. H. Fulton, Publisher) 
	--------------------------------------------
	
	Mutualism Essentially Libertarian
	
	Here, then, is where Mutualism offers its
	solution. The Mutualist wants  every person to
	have an equal right to do whatever he wills, at
	his own  cost. That demand is too moderate for
	the man who says that his freedom  is
	interfered with by a game of ball played on
	Sunday a mile or more away  from his church or
	his home. It is too mild and too reasonable for
	him. He  wants the freedom to do whatever he
	wills--at the other fellow's cost. He  insists
	on doing on Sunday exactly what he wants to do,
	but also he insists  that everyone who doesn't
	want to do what he wants to do be prevented 
	from exercising the same liberty that he
	demands for himself.
	
	Even prohibition. has been saddled on the people
	in the name of freedom!  The man who eats bread
	that contains more than three per cent of
	alcohol,  and drinks tea, coffee, coca-cola and
	other highly sweetened beverages  that are
	converted into alcohol in the bodily processes,
	says that it is a  denial of his freedom for
	others to drink other beverages containing more
	 than one-half of one per cent of alcohol. He
	doesn't prove such denial of  freedom; he
	merely asserts it.
	
	It is, therefore, one of the purposes of
	Mutualists, not only to awaken in  the people
	the appreciation of and desire for freedom, but
	also to arouse  in them a determination to
	abolish the legal restrictions now placed upon 
	non-invasive human activities and to institute,
	through purely voluntary  associations, such
	measures as will liberate all of us from the
	exactions  of privilege and the power of
	concentrated capital.
	
	Clearly enough, every product of a man's labor
	must be his own. As a  corollary, any product
	of the labor of others, if it be given him or
	if he  acquires it by exchanging the products
	of his own labor therefore is also a  man's
	own. A man's claim to such a "right" cannot be
	disputed. But, in any  discussion of rights,
	the question always arises, With just what
	rights is  a human being born?
	
	As a matter of elemental ethics, it can not be
	argued that a human being is  born with any
	right that he is not powerful enough to assert
	and maintain,  since those that precede him are
	in nowise bound to see that he obtains  the
	means of subsistence. Purely as a matter of
	abstract right, it is no  concern of theirs
	whether the newcomer survive or perish. In
	other words,  the theory that the world owes
	every man a living is a fallacy.  Nevertheless,
	the will to live is such that a human being
	will fight to the  limit for his existence if
	he is hindered or thwarted in his efforts to 
	secure the satisfaction of his bodily needs.
	
	This being so, the history of civilization has
	been merely a record of  attempts to compromise
	between the old resident and the new arrival; 
	between the strong and the weak. Vested rights
	and priority  considerations have been forced
	to yield here and there until today the  masses
	are freer from this domination of the classes
	than ever before.
	
	And so the formulation of the principle of equal
	liberty, together with its  application and
	practicalization in the system of Mutualism, is
	simply an  attempt to carry this compromise to
	its logical conclusion 
	---------------------------------------
	
	Trial by Jury
	
	When the Magna Carta was wrested from King John,
	among the things  which it granted was a trial
	by a jury of one's peers. The purpose of this 
	provision was to take from the king and from
	the nobles the power to send  a subject to
	prison for asserting the rights of the common
	man against the  man of privilege.
	
	While the origin of trial by jury seems to be
	historically hazy, it is a  certainty that it
	came to be most thoroughly established by the
	Magna  Carta; and at that time trial by jury
	was, fundamentally, in a purer and  better form
	than it has been at any time since. The obvious
	implications of  that great instrument were
	that the jury was to judge independently and 
	fearlessly everything involved in the charge,
	and especially its intrinsic  justice, and give
	its decision thereupon; and this meant that the
	jury was  to judge the law as well as the fact.
	Within a century of the time of the 
	promulgation of that great instrument, its
	provisions had been so altered  that courts
	were beginning to take away from juries the
	power to  determine the justice of the laws.
	
	In the seven hundred years that have passed
	since that charter was  granted, lawmakers and
	judges have so modified trial by jury that
	today  the right of a jury to judge the law is
	hardly recognized. It is interesting  to note,
	however, that, in America, there has of late
	been a tendency to  travel back toward the
	original purpose and scope of trials by jury. A
	case  in point is that of Scarf vs. United
	States (156 U. S. 61), in which the view  of
	the majority of the court was that it is the
	duty of a jury in a criminal  case to receive
	the law from the court and to apply it as laid
	down by the  court, subject to the condition
	that in giving a general verdict the jury  may
	incidentally determine both law and fact as
	compounded in the issues  submitted to them in
	the particular case; and it was further held
	that the  power to give a general verdict
	enables the jury to take its own view of  the
	terms and the merits of the law involved.
	
	If juries were properly chosen by lot, out of
	the whole population of a  community, and not,
	as they are now, taken out of a certain limited
	panel,  the jury would be representative of the
	sentiment of the community.
	
	With all the invasive laws that are now on the
	books, and with. all those  that the busybodies
	are adding from time to time, the ordinary
	citizen has  need of a new Magna Carta, so that
	he may not be smothered in this maze  of laws
	as the common man in King John's time was
	crushed by the  privileges exercised by the
	rulers of that day. A return to the kind of
	jury  employed in that period would partly do
	away with this maze, and invasive  laws could
	be vetoed by the simple expedient of declining
	to enforce them.
	
	If any law is to be enforced, a jury must
	convict the alleged lawbreaker. If  the jury is
	representative of the general sentiment of the
	community (and  it will be, if fairly drawn by
	lot from the whole community), there will  be,
	on an average, the same proportion of men on
	the jury who are opposed  to the invasive law
	as there is among the people in general. Let it
	be  supposed, for instance, that one-twelfth of
	the community is opposed to a  certain invasive
	law. This is only a small portion of the
	majority  necessary to repeal it by voting, and
	at the ballot box that one-twelfth  would be
	powerless. But that one man, in every twelve,
	who is opposed to  that law can, if on a jury,
	prevent a verdict from being rendered. Thus, if
	 only nine per cent of the community are
	opposed to a bad law, they can  prevent its
	enforcement. This is less than one-fifth of the
	number  necessary to repeal a law through the
	medium of an election. message of  the
	libertarian carries no weight. Their eyes are
	blind to scenes of rapine  and murder; their
	ears are deaf to pleadings for justice; their
	hearts are  cold to appeals for fair-dealing;
	and, above all, their reasoning faculties  are
	impotent in the face of arguments of
	expediency. But let all sentiment  be laid
	aside, and it may still be shown that freedom
	pays. And it pays  from whatever point of view
	it is regarded. It pays because it costs less 
	in actual cash; it pays because it is simpler
	and more easily applied; it  pays because it
	reduces the possibility of error to the lowest 
	conceivable-point; it pays because it iS in
	line with the process.of  evolution; and
	finally, and this is the greatest asset of all,
	it pays because  it is productive of the
	largest degree of happiness.
	
	The libertarian ideal is the only concept that
	paves the way for the  operation of Mutualism.
	Perfect Mutualism could not exist under any
	form  of authority; it would be thwarted and
	emasculated at every turn. Just as  today every
	social and economic evil that serves to enslave
	humanity is  the result of some form of
	governmental interference with freedom and 
	with natural processes, so would the same or
	similar forces tend to  nullify and counteract,
	to some extent, the advantages to be derived
	from  the application of the principles of
	Mutualism. It is a plant that requires  the
	fertile soil of liberty in which to make its
	unimpeded growth.
	
	On the other hand, the merit of the system is
	that it may be inaugurated  without any
	cataclysmic disturbance of the present regime.
	Indeed, for the  most important phase of
	Mutualism-that of mutual banking-but one 
	federal law, together with its counterpart in a
	number of states, would  need to be repealed in
	order to pave the way for the realization of
	this  great liberating idea. Again, in other
	directions, Mutualism may be  initiated in
	spite of the untoward aspect of constituted
	authority. In  mercantile and industrial lines,
	voluntary cooperation and other  associative
	activities may be carried on without any change
	in present  laws. In many instances, such
	operations would be facilitated by the  removal
	of certain legal restrictions and obstacles,
	but the start can be  made, once there are
	enough individuals so minded, without the
	abolition  of a single provision.
	
	As a matter of fact, there are now many
	voluntary mutualistic  associations being
	conducted with fair success, whose activities
	would be  immensely simplified and whose
	accomplishments would be greatly  augmented if
	they could be relieved of the handicaps which
	the law now  places upon them. It is one of the
	cardinal purposes of Mutualism to free  them,
	as rapidly as possible, of these obstacles. 
	
	-------------------------------------------------------------
	Cooperation Is Libertarian
	
	Will the Cooperative Movement increase
	individual liberty? One of the  tests of any
	reform movement with regard to personal liberty
	is this: will  the movement prohibit or abolish
	private property? If it does, it is an  enemy
	of liberty. For one of the most important
	criteria of freedom is the  right to private
	property in the products of one's labor. State
	Socialists,  Communists, Syndicalists, and
	Communist-Anarchists deny private  property.
	Even some of the cooperators, while admitting
	the right of  private property, believe that
	the individual is better off when owning 
	capital jointly, as if there were some
	particular evil in the individual  ownership of
	capital. But, happily, there are a great many
	cooperators who  realize that private property
	is a prime essential for individuals, making 
	them independent, thrifty, responsible-effects
	exactly opposite to those  produced by public
	ownership.
	
	The Cooperative Movement is founded on the
	principle of voluntary  association. Any member
	may withdraw from his Cooperative, taking with 
	him that which belongs to him. In other words,
	he is free, in that respect.  And, since the
	ultimate aim of the movement is the gradual
	disappearance  of monopolistic and compulsory
	institutions, the individual will enjoy a 
	progressively larger freedom than he does now,
	if this aim is reached. A  cooperative
	association can tolerate criticism; it can be
	threatened by any  member with non-support, or
	even with opposition; any number of  members
	may actually secede and be free to start a
	counter organization,  without being shot for
	treason. In fact, a true cooperative is a
	creature of  its members; it has no power over
	them except what has been accepted by 
	voluntary agreement; they can overthrow it at
	any time; and it will only be  able to exist if
	it gives the service for which it was intended.
	This is  freedom; and, because cooperators
	acknowledge this freedom, there is  hope that,
	in the course of time, they will acknowledge
	freedom as the  most important requirement in
	all the relations of men. Moreover, they  will,
	no doubt, also find that the only liberty
	possible in human relations  is equal
	liberty-that is, the largest amount of personal
	liberty that is  compatible with the like
	liberty of all.
	
	The fact that the Cooperatives are purely
	voluntary associations, and are,  as far as
	they go, wholly libertarian, gives them a high
	place in the  esteem of Mutualists, who
	maintain that the world's best work is done in 
	the absence of compulsion, and in spite of,
	rather than with the aid of, the  arbitrary
	power of organized authority. It is this
	characteristic of their  structure, in the view
	of Mutualists, that renders the Cooperatives of
	 peculiar value in advancing the principles of
	Mutualism and in developing  its processes.
	
	It is a significant fact that the Bolsheviks,
	after trying to squeeze the  Russian
	Cooperative Movement into their State
	capitalism, were forced by  the bad results to
	give back to the Cooperatives their freedom,
	and that  they now expect more help in the
	socialization of Russian economic life  from
	the cooperatives than from any other agency.
	But, if these remain  true cooperatives, the
	Communists will be sadly disappointed in their 
	expectations. 
	
	---------------------------------------
	
	Rights Not Natural or Inalienable
	
	In discussions, such as this, in which ethics is
	mingled with politics, the  word "rights" is
	often loosely and vaguely used. Fundamentally
	and  elementally, of course, there is only one
	right-the right of might. To talk  about
	"natural" rights and "inalienable" rights is to
	talk about something  that does not exist. To
	speak of natural rights implies that there is
	an  unquestioned or an indisputable right of
	some kind that is inherent in the  individual
	when he is born. If that were really true, then
	the right of might  could not operate against
	it. In order that the right of might could not
	so  operate, the inherent or natural or
	inalienable right would have to be of  such a
	nature that no force could overcome it. Merely
	to state the case in  that way is sufficient to
	show the nonsense of the notion that there can 
	be anything superior to the right of might;
	unless there is some  metaphysical meaning
	attached to those three adjectives that is not 
	fathomable by the finite mind. The real truth
	of the matter is that, since  there is no right
	superior to that of might, all other rights, of
	whatever  nature, exist only by sufferance; in
	other words, by contract or agreement.  For
	certain considerations (such as the desire for
	
	peace and tranquillity and other things that
	make for happiness) the  strongest have agreed
	to yield, in certain fields, their prerogative;
	they  have consented to forego the privileges
	which their strength assures  them-and thereby
	there come into existence the elements of
	modern  society.
	
	It should be emphasized that the term "society,"
	as used herein, refers to  that social organism
	which, in its abstract sense, implies the union
	or  sum of relations by which the individuals
	of any group are associated, and  not to that
	political organization known as "government" or
	"state."
	
	The difference between the two is fundamental
	and vital, and, if not  clearly distinguished
	in the mind of the student, serious confusion
	of  thought will result. All political states
	and governments are founded on  physical force,
	and, as explained in Chapter I, are necessarily
	aggressive  and invasive in character.
	Considering their origin and functions, they 
	must be of that nature in order to survive.
	
	Society, on the other hand, has no such origin
	and has no such functions.  Out of it may issue
	and from it may be adapted any organization
	that, in  the course of evolution, may arise.
	
	Society, then, as thus defined, is constituted
	of myriads of compacts, both  express and
	implied, which are supposed to enable all,
	regardless of  individual strength, to live in
	peace and harmony, since all recognize,  more
	or less clearly, that that is a necessary
	condition of happiness. And s  Mutualists,
	since they are keenly aware of this fundamental
	condition, are  concerned with what they
	consider to be the best adaptation of means to 
	the end. Accepting frankly the ethical concept
	outlined above, they hold  that they have
	devised a social system that will conform in
	the best  possible way to all the conditions of
	modern life, since it is based on  equal
	freedom and reciprocity and the sovereignty of
	the individual over  himself, his affairs, and
	the product of his labor, to be realized
	through  individual initiative, free contract,
	and voluntary association.
	
	Mutualism means that there shall be no coercion
	by society of any person  who commits no
	antisocial act, and that all the collective
	affairs of  society shall be conducted by
	voluntary associations, wherein payment  shall
	be made for services rendered, and for nothing
	else.
