Traveller
21st March 2012, 09:59
Is communism neceserally communalistic?
First,I have to explain what i consider as communalism.
The social anthropologist (if i remember correctly) Thomas Hylland Erkisen considerd the household as a thing,where the main meals are eaten together.
Thus a communalism,in this sense,mean a way of life where,where people dont eat alone (e.g. the basement of the household is not the nuclear family,but the smaller or bigger group of people.) This definition might seem shallow or superfical but but one must keep in mind that is it is difficult define the notion of household.
So will the socialist future communalistic?
My opinion is that not. I see communal lifestyle (and communalism in general) as an adaptive cultural mechanism which maintain the cohesion within the community (e.g. its try to hold together) created by the conditions of the capiatalist society separation from the productive forces (even it is try to be self-supporter,you cannot really share your resources with other people directly,if you dont live as in prehistorical age),and I am not sure about that,but suppose that it somehow related with liminality (as it was used by Wictor Turner).
To illustrate this just look at the most famous intentional community Twin Oaks,or study the history of Oneida Community.
Nuclear family is historical product,but most society have monogamy based household,(or martialrelationship which tend toward monogamy)even among hunter-gatheres),so they are not communal in this sense.
A socialist society which have the global totality of resources and it can share them indirecty by redistribution, will not need an adaptive cultural mechanism to defend against the harmful impact of the capitalist ambient,so communalism wont be needed.
On the other hand,there are some people who think it goes together:the early urbanist city planners of the Soviet Union,the maoist communes in china where they ate together stc.
What is your opinion?
First,I have to explain what i consider as communalism.
The social anthropologist (if i remember correctly) Thomas Hylland Erkisen considerd the household as a thing,where the main meals are eaten together.
Thus a communalism,in this sense,mean a way of life where,where people dont eat alone (e.g. the basement of the household is not the nuclear family,but the smaller or bigger group of people.) This definition might seem shallow or superfical but but one must keep in mind that is it is difficult define the notion of household.
So will the socialist future communalistic?
My opinion is that not. I see communal lifestyle (and communalism in general) as an adaptive cultural mechanism which maintain the cohesion within the community (e.g. its try to hold together) created by the conditions of the capiatalist society separation from the productive forces (even it is try to be self-supporter,you cannot really share your resources with other people directly,if you dont live as in prehistorical age),and I am not sure about that,but suppose that it somehow related with liminality (as it was used by Wictor Turner).
To illustrate this just look at the most famous intentional community Twin Oaks,or study the history of Oneida Community.
Nuclear family is historical product,but most society have monogamy based household,(or martialrelationship which tend toward monogamy)even among hunter-gatheres),so they are not communal in this sense.
A socialist society which have the global totality of resources and it can share them indirecty by redistribution, will not need an adaptive cultural mechanism to defend against the harmful impact of the capitalist ambient,so communalism wont be needed.
On the other hand,there are some people who think it goes together:the early urbanist city planners of the Soviet Union,the maoist communes in china where they ate together stc.
What is your opinion?