heidi_'s review
4.0
This made so much sense! Our industrial-era safety net was modeled after unions and cooperatives which have since fallen out of fashion. Horowitz argues that we need to revive these key institutions, both through community organizing and through public policy which supports their efforts.
Rather than adopting the black or white options of one-size-fits-all legislation or leaving individuals alone to fend for themselves, we should invest in the gray area where mutualist organizations lie. This middle space is able to take advantage of economies of scale while focusing on differentiated community needs, an approach often left out of the progressive push for overarching reform.
"There's no reason that proposals for nationalized healthcare can't coexist with mutualism, but mutualist organizations themselves — unions, cooperatives, mutual aid societies, faith communities — are uniquely positioned to be the delivery mechanism for that care."
Here, we have a practical guide to scaling up what we know works, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That said, given how extractive market forces inherently contradict this vision, I'm curious where the author would draw the line between changing the system from within and demanding a full overhaul. I'm unsure whether the changes she argues for — tax credits and patient capital markets — are truly feasible under our existing structures. I would have appreciated greater elaboration on how we would incentivize corporations to do the right thing over the profitable thing.
"We've been trained to be critics. Building begins by changing your orientation away from yourself, away from the critique of government or capitalism, and toward your neighbors regardless of their political stripe or class. Transform those critiques into action."
Without changing the flow of capital, these institutions have no ability to sustain themselves. Not unlike how a national health plan can coexist with mutualist organizations, critiques of capitalism can and should coexist with community organizing.
Aside from this gripe, this was a thoroughly enjoyable read. Horowitz makes excellent points about the power of labor, especially when internal divisions relating to class or occupation are discarded in favor of amplifying collective bargaining power. Her ideas will stick with me for some time.
Rather than adopting the black or white options of one-size-fits-all legislation or leaving individuals alone to fend for themselves, we should invest in the gray area where mutualist organizations lie. This middle space is able to take advantage of economies of scale while focusing on differentiated community needs, an approach often left out of the progressive push for overarching reform.
"There's no reason that proposals for nationalized healthcare can't coexist with mutualism, but mutualist organizations themselves — unions, cooperatives, mutual aid societies, faith communities — are uniquely positioned to be the delivery mechanism for that care."
Here, we have a practical guide to scaling up what we know works, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That said, given how extractive market forces inherently contradict this vision, I'm curious where the author would draw the line between changing the system from within and demanding a full overhaul. I'm unsure whether the changes she argues for — tax credits and patient capital markets — are truly feasible under our existing structures. I would have appreciated greater elaboration on how we would incentivize corporations to do the right thing over the profitable thing.
"We've been trained to be critics. Building begins by changing your orientation away from yourself, away from the critique of government or capitalism, and toward your neighbors regardless of their political stripe or class. Transform those critiques into action."
Without changing the flow of capital, these institutions have no ability to sustain themselves. Not unlike how a national health plan can coexist with mutualist organizations, critiques of capitalism can and should coexist with community organizing.
Aside from this gripe, this was a thoroughly enjoyable read. Horowitz makes excellent points about the power of labor, especially when internal divisions relating to class or occupation are discarded in favor of amplifying collective bargaining power. Her ideas will stick with me for some time.
perigeesyzygy's review
3.0
seemed ultimately repetitive and offered little of what I was looking for which was actionable steps for the average community. very labor focused. would like to try and reread if I find the time, but did not keep my interest. skimmed through the remainder of the book, but DNF
cliffhangerbooks's review
informative
medium-paced
3.5
have been reading several books on new economics lately, trying to better grasp what different sides of the green transition imply. I picked up “Mutualism” by impulse, as I do with so many books, so I was probably expecting something that wasn’t there.
Mutualism is conceptually interesting: it is about embedding social benefit at the core of organisations and thinking of ways to be self-sustaining without compromising the values of the communities they serve. This was a particularly timely reading for me since I’m going through very similar discussions at work.
I like this book, but I thought its contextualisation was too American. By this, I mean that there are assumptions of how organisms or communities work that are specific to the US and don’t have much to do with the rest of the world. But again, I liked the main takeaways, so you might enjoy the book anyway if you don’t mind that.
novkap's review
3.0
Very informative-I learned a lot from this book about mutualism and some history about the labor movement in the United States. Only thing- it was sometimes a slog to get through. It might be this topic is just not super exciting for me personally and also because I felt some parts of the book were repetitive. I still would recommend because the information is great and not common knowledge.
nooknook's review
2.0
I appreciated the history of labor and mutualist organizations, but that’s about all I appreciated about this book.
I was in no way convinced by the argument that mutualism (not socialism) is the answer to our problems. The author recognizes that neoliberal capitalism is a problem, but suggests using capitalism to fix capitalism, which makes no sense. Mutualism does mean that workers have control over profit—but I don’t understand why this is somehow better than giving workers the means of production themselves. The idea that we should stop criticizing capitalism and government seems plain defeatist to me. And her rhetoric of personal responsibility and resilience us plain neoliberal ideology. Ultimately, she seems to fundamentally misunderstand communism—in a true communist society, there would be no top-down or forceful revolution; the state would no longer need to exist after the transition occurred, and anyway it would be a more true embodiment of the people than in a capitalist society.
The examples she provided of mutualism did not convince me that it would be worth abandoning a socialist ideal for. We have gaping wealth inequality & deeply engrained racism, which can’t be fixed by local or special-interest groups. We need reparations, and that needs to happen at the government level. (Jeff Bezos won’t willingly give up his stolen profits.)
We also need global reparations, which leads me to another point—the author makes no mention of what this system might mean internationally. Capitalism has unevenly developed the globe, which calls for dramatic redistribution of wealth and resources. Her (brief) use of the kibbutz as a model embodies this failure to account for how wealth has accrued in the West as a direct result of racism and settler colonialism.
It’s a no for me.
I was in no way convinced by the argument that mutualism (not socialism) is the answer to our problems. The author recognizes that neoliberal capitalism is a problem, but suggests using capitalism to fix capitalism, which makes no sense. Mutualism does mean that workers have control over profit—but I don’t understand why this is somehow better than giving workers the means of production themselves. The idea that we should stop criticizing capitalism and government seems plain defeatist to me. And her rhetoric of personal responsibility and resilience us plain neoliberal ideology. Ultimately, she seems to fundamentally misunderstand communism—in a true communist society, there would be no top-down or forceful revolution; the state would no longer need to exist after the transition occurred, and anyway it would be a more true embodiment of the people than in a capitalist society.
The examples she provided of mutualism did not convince me that it would be worth abandoning a socialist ideal for. We have gaping wealth inequality & deeply engrained racism, which can’t be fixed by local or special-interest groups. We need reparations, and that needs to happen at the government level. (Jeff Bezos won’t willingly give up his stolen profits.)
We also need global reparations, which leads me to another point—the author makes no mention of what this system might mean internationally. Capitalism has unevenly developed the globe, which calls for dramatic redistribution of wealth and resources. Her (brief) use of the kibbutz as a model embodies this failure to account for how wealth has accrued in the West as a direct result of racism and settler colonialism.
It’s a no for me.
subdue_provide75's review
inspiring
slow-paced
1.5
This tries to be an inspiration to creating your own mutalist organization, rather than a (grand) theory about mutual aid.