Communism in America

[Spook.]

Hey there. I figured instead of being a total lurker on this forum, I could post some inspiring (at least for me it is) content. Its mini documentary about this ACTUAL communist-esque community here in the middle of anti-communism land.

Since I don't have 25 posts I can't post links, but you can go to youtube and search for: "Twin Oaks: Small-scale communism in America" Should be first video.




(This is my first post, so hopefully I'm be starting off on the wrong foot by posting this in the wrong section or something stupid like that lol)

(Sorry if this has already been posted on here)

[argeiphontes]

Thanks for the post. The link to the video is HERE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGv50uYUHJw).

You won't find many supporters of this on RevLeft, but I could be mistaken. The more I think about it, the more I think it should be part of transition to communism, and is good advertizing too.

[Spook.]

Yeah I see the majority, at least what I've seen, on here are more Marxist-Leninists as opposed to the more Anarcho-communist such as myself. In my opinion both are equally benevolent, but in my opinion something of this nature is the perfect method to segway into a communist society. Or more of a hybrid theory between the two sub-ideologies could be to set up societies across said nation and let them grow. Then, come in for the sweeping, Marxist-Leninist style, revolution. I don't know, just an idea! :)

[argeiphontes]

There should be a source of development funding for groups that want to set up "collectives", like capitalist firms have from venture capital funding.

[Spook.]

Ha! Use their own tactics against them :lol:

[Popular Front of Judea]

Lived in East Wind, Twin Oaks sister community for a spell. Not so interested in such communities now. I don't see such communities as a viable solution for the larger population. I see such communities as a personal lifestyle choice. Such communities don't scale. 150 people is the upper limit for such communities to function well. If they grow larger they have to hive off.

If you are interested in such 'intentional communities' then by all means check out the Federation for Intentional Communities (http://www.ic.org/)

[Venas Abiertas]

Excelent video! I wish one of the inhabitants of Twin Oaks was on RevLeft. I have many questions I would like to ask them.

IMHO, this is the way humankind was intended to live. This is real communism. Thinking, caring people, living together and supporting and helping each other. Needs of the inhabitants provided by the community and obtained through collective work.

Obviously this model would have to be adapted to differing circumstances, for example, to a big city environment. Perhaps their methods could be modified to work on a larger scale, or the city divided up into smaller self governing units. Perhaps that's the essential difference between anarchist thinking and M-L.

What most impressed me was the amount of funds they had available for upgrading their technology, providing medical care, education, decent housing (better than most places I've ever lived), transportation, etc. Just by cutting out the bosses and the middle men. This is truly what Marx and Engels imagined, as well as Thomas More, Robert Owens, and the other utopians.

On the negative side:

I would think that this video would convince even the most diehard conservative capitalist that "another world is possible", but reading some of the comments below the video I see that isn't so. :confused:

[argeiphontes]

What most impressed me was the amount of funds they had available for upgrading their technology, providing medical care, education, decent housing (better than most places I've ever lived), transportation, etc. Just by cutting out the bosses and the middle men. This is truly what Marx and Engels imagined, as well as Thomas More, Robert Owens, and the other utopians.

That's because communism works! :grin: In the US and Canada there's the Hutterite religious sect who are religious communists. They were on a television show recently, and I was pretty impressed that they use the most modern equipment on their farms.

[Venas Abiertas]

Popular Front, you must have posted your message while I was still typing mine.

I lived for about 3 years in a small, isolated rural community in Central America that was somewhat like this. I enjoyed it immensely. It was much poorer than Twin Oaks but there was no crime, hunger, discrimination, or other ills. It was the only time in my life when I felt like I was simply treated at face-value as another human being, an individual and not a stereotypical member of some group. I felt that the people there really wanted to get to know me, and not just utilize me for some end.

Did you notice anything similar at the Twin Oaks in Tennessee?

[Venas Abiertas]

Yes, dammit. You're right, Agreiphontes. Communism does work. Let's not ever forget that.

[Popular Front of Judea]

What most impressed me was the amount of funds they had available for upgrading their technology, providing medical care, education, decent housing (better than most places I've ever lived), transportation, etc. Just by cutting out the bosses and the middle men. This is truly what Marx and Engels imagined, as well as Thomas More, Robert Owens, and the other utopians.

On the negative side:

I would think that this video would convince even the most diehard conservative capitalist that "another world is possible", but reading some of the comments below the video I see that isn't so. :confused:

Twin Oaks has the funds because it sells goods in the market. Self-sufficiency is not the goal. Hammock making has been a major source of revenue. They have had a contract with Pier One imports. (They may still have.) They have been a going concern for over 40 years. If you are interested in Twin Oaks and their sister communities do check out my link. They will be happy to answer your questions.

I don't know why people don't simply disable Youtube comments. Pointless troll bait.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Popular Front, you must have posted your message while I was still typing mine.

I lived for about 3 years in a small, isolated rural community in Central America that was somewhat like this. I enjoyed it immensely. It was much poorer than Twin Oaks but there was no crime, hunger, discrimination, or other ills. It was the only time in my life when I felt like I was simply treated at face-value as another human being, an individual and not a stereotypical member of some group. I felt that the people there really wanted to get to know me, and not just utilize me for some end.

Did you notice anything similar at the Twin Oaks in Tennessee?

I lived in East Wind, Twin Oaks dysfunctional Ozark sister. :grin: The small size makes the difference, that and the focus on community as versus individual wellbeing.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Yes, dammit. You're right, Agreiphontes. Communism does work. Let's not ever forget that.

VA was the community you lived in Central America secular or faith based? (Liberation theology?) Religious communal living has a long -- successful -- history. Secular? Not so much. Places like Twin Oaks are notable by their very existence.

[Venas Abiertas]

Pop Front, you say that Twin Oaks has funds because it sells goods in the market.

Do you think this community would simply be reduced to agrarian poverty if it didn't have access to a capitalist economy for its products? What if it were part of a larger socialist society? Wouldn't the government then be able to collect goods and redistribute them justly among all the communities?

Would it be necessary in a socialist world to produce goods on a massive scale in large factories and farms in order to generate enough for everyone?

Would anybody like to answer these questions?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Pop Front, you say that Twin Oaks has funds because it sells goods in the market.

Do you think this community would simply be reduced to agrarian poverty if it didn't have access to a capitalist economy for its products? What if it were part of a larger socialist society? Wouldn't the government then be able to collect goods and redistribute them justly among all the communities?

Would it be necessary in a socialist world to produce goods on a massive scale in large factories and farms in order to generate enough for everyone?

Would anybody like to answer these questions?

Twin Oaks and especially East Wind would indeed be reduced to poverty if they were forced to be self sufficient. Interestingly even the Amish are industrializing producing furniture etc for the larger capitalist economy.

At our present population macro industry and agriculture is our only option. There are tweaks possible but homestead farming and industry just isn't going to be sufficient.

[Spook.]

Wow, both of you (Pop Front and Venas), that is pretty incredible that you both were able to live in a community such as that. I understand what you mean about Twin Oaks not being ideal for a large scale community, but maybe its because they aren't trying to gain a large community? And of course the current socio-economic state of America that is constantly oppressing those who wish to live self-sufficiently. It seems as though if there was ever a time for leftist revolutionaries to make their move on restoring the image of, and promoting communism/anarchism. Seeing as how distrust and chaos in the government is at all-time highs.

[argeiphontes]

At our present population macro industry and agriculture is our only option. There are tweaks possible but homestead farming and industry just isn't going to be sufficient.

I guess, since I believe in worker's self-management, that this is mostly a question of capital? However, I would expect there to be more and smaller industries in communism, that is, I'd expect communism to favor a diversity of smaller producers over larger, more concentrated ones. But I think diversity in that regard is good. (i.e. it's a feature, not a bug)

[argeiphontes]

I understand what you mean about Twin Oaks not being ideal for a large scale community, but maybe its because they aren't trying to gain a large community?

A community would be a larger-scale entity containing several communes. That would allow better coordination of labor.

I still think these could be key to a transitional state to communism, since they result in worker control of the means of production and profit being redistributed equally, which is part of communism. The ability to coordinate them would increase as their number increased.

[Venas Abiertas]

Pop Front, I didn't live in a commune as such, just a small village nestled in a hollow in the mountains. Pretty much isolated from the outside world. No electricity, TV, phone service, only radio stations were two from a neighboring country and The Voice of America (Oh well, at least they had a good jazz program on Sunday night.)

The people there were of native american ancestry and practiced what I suppose Marxists would call "primitive communism". There was a "headman" (jefe) who made decisions after meeting with the villagers. The only punishment for villagers who committed infractions such as excessive drinking, neglecting the family, or fighting, was "shunning" which was actually very painful for those social people. Their community was everything for them, they had very little individualism, so being ostracized from their group was frightening for them.

I used to think of them as "ants". Did you ever grab an ant from a line of ants or a nest and carry it far away from its mound? It just runs in circles endlessly, trying to pick up the pheromone trail back to its community. If it doesn't find it, it just dies. That's what those people were like. That's why so many of them become useless drunks when they move to a big city. They think of themselves as part of a collective--removed from that collective, they have little individual initiative and they end up in substance abuse.

Unfortunately, the village where I lived (25 years ago) is now a cocaine-growing and trafficking area, thanks to the DEA, which drove the coca production out of Colombia and into Central America, and thanks to the backwards "prohibitionist" drug policy of the US.
The original inhabitants have been driven off or forced to work for the narcos, all with the complicity of the government, which is funded by the traffickers.

Some indigenous towns have tried to resist but the government arrests the leaders under "trespassing" and "public disturbance" charges and sends the military to quell any remaining opposition.

[Creative Destruction]

My wife and I spent some time on a communal farm similar to Twin Oaks. The way the funded themselves was through a small shop and cafe they had in town. At some points they were even partners in Twin Oaks' (or some other famous communal farm) hammock making business.

I have to say, the experience didn't leave that great of a taste in our mouths. Before we went there, I had a pretty good outlook on communities like that, but not so much when we left. At this point, I think those communities can never be agents of actual change, especially in this one where the participants -- except for some of the older folks, so called "The Elders" -- were not that politically conscious. Some of them had done activist work, and they were kind of run-of-the-mill environmentalists or green weenies, but for the most part they were looking for the "free love" thing and they weren't interested in actually working for the commune. A lot of people would skip out on work and chores they had agreed to do and it just kind of shitted everything up. It was basically a young people's camp that was attractive because you didn't need money. Pretty much folks who decided that they were going to use this as a waystation in their life and then move on to something else. That and there was a whole shit ton of unnecessary drama.

I'm more amiable now about trying to revolutionize existing social structures rather than trying to buy land outside of civilization and try at it yourself. It seems rather reactionary, to be honest. I'm attracted to Murray Bookchin's theories about dual power.

[argeiphontes]

those communities can never be agents of actual change, especially in this one where the participants -- except for some of the older folks, so called "The Elders" -- were not that politically conscious.

...

Some of them had done activist work, and they were kind of run-of-the-mill environmentalists or green weenies, but for the most part they were looking for the "free love" thing and they weren't interested in actually working for the commune. A lot of people would skip out on work and chores they had agreed to do and it just kind of shitted everything up. It was basically a young people's camp that was attractive because you didn't need money. Pretty much folks who decided that they were going to use this as a waystation in their life and then move on to something else. That and there was a whole shit ton of unnecessary drama.

They need ideology, and the problem is also that a cooperative should be arranged for production not as a place to 'hang out'. This bakery recently posted here (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/agencia-efe/130909/anarchist-bakery-makes-its-mark-paris) is a much better model.

I guess you still can't work without material reward, that's not surprising. The bakery socializes the profit motive so that more people experience it, but less strongly perhaps. Though perhaps not. Anyway I think it's better.

edit: If setups like this are supposed to be the primary productive organization after the revolution, it would be a good idea to figure out how to make it work beforehand.

[Spook.]

I think those communities can never be agents of actual change, especially in this one where the participants -- except for some of the older folks, so called "The Elders" -- were not that politically conscious.

I see how that could happen, but I'm pretty sure Twin Oaks has a sort of interviewing process where everyone in the commune get to vote on whether or not said individual get in or not. So I feel like that would separate out the majority of the chaff. Speaking strictly of Twin Oaks, they honestly seem like they have their shit together. Everyone seems like they are willing, and motivated to better the commune.

Also, I'm sorry it was a bad experience for you.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Frankly the place you were at was not at all similar to Twin Oaks. Of course Twin Oaks itself is the result of an evolutionary process. A crucial piece of the communal puzzle is personal accountability. (That's where that 150 person limit comes in.) Any communal project that doesn't have a way of holding people accountable is not long for the world. If you are on the edge of viability carrying deadwood is not an adaptive option. (There are obvious qualifications to that but you get my drift.)

Drama does go with the territory. Village life always had drama. Of course if the village is composed of young activist types it will be stepped up a notch.

Like I said earlier I see rural communities like Twin Oaks more of a personal lifestyle choice than a launchpad for social transformation. It does seem interesting the parallels between the parents of the children of the 60s move to the suburbs and their children's escape to the countryside.


My wife and I spent some time on a communal farm similar to Twin Oaks. The way the funded themselves was through a small shop and cafe they had in town. At some points they were even partners in Twin Oaks' (or some other famous communal farm) hammock making business.

I have to say, the experience didn't leave that great of a taste in our mouths. Before we went there, I had a pretty good outlook on communities like that, but not so much when we left. At this point, I think those communities can never be agents of actual change, especially in this one where the participants -- except for some of the older folks, so called "The Elders" -- were not that politically conscious. Some of them had done activist work, and they were kind of run-of-the-mill environmentalists or green weenies, but for the most part they were looking for the "free love" thing and they weren't interested in actually working for the commune. A lot of people would skip out on work and chores they had agreed to do and it just kind of shitted everything up. It was basically a young people's camp that was attractive because you didn't need money. Pretty much folks who decided that they were going to use this as a waystation in their life and then move on to something else. That and there was a whole shit ton of unnecessary drama.

I'm more amiable now about trying to revolutionize existing social structures rather than trying to buy land outside of civilization and try at it yourself. It seems rather reactionary, to be honest. I'm attracted to Murray Bookchin's theories about dual power.

[fractal-vortex]

I also have been to such a commune here, in Ukraine, I agree witht the previous speaker: they appear reactionary today. In the first part of XIX century, they were a new thing, like the Owen communities, or the Fourier Community, or like religious communist communities, like the Oneida in New York. Today, it is all reactionary. They can not change the overall capitalist and/or bureaucratic system.

[Creative Destruction]

I see how that could happen, but I'm pretty sure Twin Oaks has a sort of interviewing process where everyone in the commune get to vote on whether or not said individual get in or not. So I feel like that would separate out the majority of the chaff. Speaking strictly of Twin Oaks, they honestly seem like they have their shit together. Everyone seems like they are willing, and motivated to better the commune.

Also, I'm sorry it was a bad experience for you.

Yeah, and I was speaking to one of the elders in this commune and asked them if they had been to any other ICs and what they thought of them. While this guy didn't live at TO, he said that "They are definitely one of the better organized of these communities." The one I was at was in complete disarray and was being sorted out by one single person, who was, tbf, the workhorse of the place. If she couldn't save it, then no one can.

But this place had an interview process, as well. You'd fill out an application, talk to the house coordinator, arrange to stay there for a week, where you're a participant but not a full voting member. After your week, if you want to stay longer then you arrange another couple of weeks in the future while the commune discusses how well you'd fit. You come back, do your couple of weeks and they decide if you can stay on a probationary period. During your probationary period, you decide if you want to be there permanently. If you do, then the full members all have to come to a consensus on whether you can stay there. It was set up pretty well, the screening process.

[Creative Destruction]

Frankly the place you were at was not at all similar to Twin Oaks. Of course Twin Oaks itself is the result of an evolutionary process. A crucial piece of the communal puzzle is personal accountability. (That's where that 150 person limit comes in.) Any communal project that doesn't have a way of holding people accountable is not long for the world. If you are on the edge of viability carrying deadwood is not an adaptive option. (There are obvious qualifications to that but you get my drift.)

Drama does go with the territory. Village life always had drama. Of course if the village is composed of young activist types it will be stepped up a notch.

Well, they, in theory, had an accountability process but the youngins weren't interested in maintaining it. But that unnecessary drama I was talking about? It wasn't your run-of-the-mill rumors or plain conflict of personalities. There were serious accusations that were floated and they held up the decision making process (which worked on consensus.) The place was/is a mess.


Like I said earlier I see rural communities like Twin Oaks more of a personal lifestyle choice than a launchpad for social transformation. It does seem interesting the parallels between the parents of the children of the 60s move to the suburbs and their children's escape to the countryside.

I grew up in a rural community and a lot of my family farms so I spent quite a bit of time on the countryside. I was always enamored with it and I want to stay there. Cities make me feel uncomfortable, but I also wanted community. So these IC projects interested me. But, man, I don't know. Even though Twin Oaks probably has their shit together, I have a feeling I would have gotten tired of it quick. There's more organizing to do in the countryside than people realize, and insulating yourself in one of those places can't help. I agree that it's probably just a lifestyle choice more than anything.

[Spook.]

Hmm, well. It may not be the perfect solution for all of us, but the way I see it is, because of the general view of Americans is either "Communism = Fascism" or "Communism only works in theory". I think more communes such as these need to be set up all over America. (Red invasion anyone? ;) ) I think that they should band together though, so their efforts are more holistically beneficial for the collective movement. I know you sent the link for the Fellowship of Intentional Communities website, but I'm thinking something such as this, but more so that ALL of the communes put their money/resources into the collective pot so they could better distribute the resources. (note: I'm thinking more activist, expanding communes) If we were to begin a process of systematically starting up communes all over USA (or the world for that matter), then pooling the collective of all said communes together and using the resources to benefit the preexisting communities, and build new ones to expand.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I grew up in a rural community and a lot of my family farms so I spent quite a bit of time on the countryside. I was always enamored with it and I want to stay there. Cities make me feel uncomfortable, but I also wanted community. So these IC projects interested me. But, man, I don't know. Even though Twin Oaks probably has their shit together, I have a feeling I would have gotten tired of it quick. There's more organizing to do in the countryside than people realize, and insulating yourself in one of those places can't help. I agree that it's probably just a lifestyle choice more than anything.

I always found it ironic that such rural 'intentional communities' needed precisely the type of the people that were least likely to find them attractive ie disciplined people that grew up on farms and in small towns.

[argeiphontes]

"Consensus" decision making makes about as much sense as the liberum veto instituted by the Polish nobility that led to the downfall of Poland.

Frankly, though, if these can't be made to work well, then what does that say about communism? I don't think that anything will magically happen to suddenly make people organize things better or put in more work after the revolution. But I also don't think that the failure of some of these says much about the idea in general; most capitalist enterprises also fail. The trick would be getting "The Formula" right to make it work.

[Creative Destruction]

"Consensus" decision making makes about as much sense as the liberum veto instituted by the Polish nobility that led to the downfall of Poland.

Frankly, though, if these can't be made to work well, then what does that say about communism? I don't think that anything will magically happen to suddenly make people organize things better or put in more work after the revolution. But I also don't think that the failure of some of these says much about the idea in general; most capitalist enterprises also fail. The trick would be getting "The Formula" right to make it work.

I don't think it says anything about communism, really. These communes still exist under capitalist conditions, not under that of free access. They are small, mainly insular communities that nonetheless only able to survive by participating in the capitalist game. I guess if anything, it just says that a communist system cannot coexist with a capitalist one.

[Fred]

I thought this topic was more-or-less settled by Marx's rejection and critique of "utopian socialism" a la Owen. These little communities, as great as they may be, cannot and will not change the system. If only they could.

[argeiphontes]

Fred, I'm not that pessimistic about them, and I'm not that strict of a Marxist. Since they overturn some of the relations of capitalism, I see them as valid targets for transitional activity. I don't see why the working class can only achieve communism by taking over existing entities. Existing entities carry their own baggage from having been formed in capitalism, which is another consideration, but mainly what I'm getting at is that I don't see why the working class can't create an alternative instead of having to take over existing things. I guess I'm a humanist at heart ;)

Furthermore, the more all-encompassing the goal, the further it is from completion. This allows a sort of messianic tenor to the movement, that some day the working class will be possessed by the holy spirit of class consciousness and there will be an armageddon that ushers in a golden age of communism. Of course, we don't know what the kingdom of heaven will look like exactly, but we expect you to struggle for the goal nonetheless. Mondragon and other self-management successes mitigate this. Capitalism has the force of objectivity behind it, and I think we need some of that too.

So, I don't see why this should be written off as a fruitful area...?

edit: When I talk about this, I usually accept that they need better ideology and to be organized around a specific production objective.