Why aren't communes more widepsread in America?

[AlexJohnson]

We have our fair share of leftists and hippies in the states. Why don't we see communes on more of a large scale?

Why hasn't anyone taken it a step further yet, and created a whole communist city by acquiring a large spread of land and building off it?

[YSR]

Uh, because we're workers and we don't have the requisite money to do such a thing?

Not to say that utopians haven't done this before. It was big in the 1800's, the whole Romantic movement and whatnot. Of course, these were rich "socialists," so big surprise that they failed.

But lacking a class consciousness and a sense of international solidarity, isolationist communes are doomed to either failure or utter irrelevence. The future of leftism lies in revolution, not retreat.

[liberationjunky]

I'm from the sates and I would love to live in a commune if I had the chance, at least for alittle bit and see what its like. Are there many in the states?

[which doctor]

There are a few surviving communes left in the USA, but they are mostly quite small and spread out. I have one only a few miles south of my house, but it's all religiousy.

They were bigger in the 1960's (hippies) and the 1800's (individualist anarchists, christian communalists).

[An archist]

thre's so much open space in the US, it shouldn't be hard to set up a commune yourself, should it?
A commune would be a good place to spread leftist ideas, like a squat.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Because they are shitholes set up by intellectuals as "social projects." They are not answers to our problems, they are an escape from them. Workers have to WORK, they can't be off in the woods living the green life and smelling flowers all day.

[MrDoom]

Useless utopians. They'll probably be swept away in the revolution like dust.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 1 2006, 07:28 PM
Uh, because we're workers and we don't have the requisite money to do such a thing?

Not to say that utopians haven't done this before. It was big in the 1800's, the whole Romantic movement and whatnot. Of course, these were rich "socialists," so big surprise that they failed.

But lacking a class consciousness and a sense of international solidarity, isolationist communes are doomed to either failure or utter irrelevence. The future of leftism lies in revolution, not retreat.
werd to that

[AlexJohnson]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:56 AM
Because they are shitholes set up by intellectuals as "social projects." They are not answers to our problems, they are an escape from them. Workers have to WORK, they can't be off in the woods living the green life and smelling flowers all day.
What if enough people "escaped"? Couldn't that be or cause a revolution in itself?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by AlexJohnson+Sep 2 2006, 11:54 PM--> (AlexJohnson @ Sep 2 2006, 11:54 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 01:56 AM
Because they are shitholes set up by intellectuals as "social projects." They are not answers to our problems, they are an escape from them. Workers have to WORK, they can't be off in the woods living the green life and smelling flowers all day.
What if enough people "escaped"? Couldn't that be or cause a revolution in itself? [/b]
That is logistically impossible. Not to mention the pointlessness of it. If a significant enough ammount of people to cause a revolution would move to a commune, why would they not just take over the means of production WHERE THEY LIVE?

[AlexJohnson]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Sep 3 2006, 04:10 AM--> (violencia.Proletariat @ Sep 3 2006, 04:10 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:54 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 01:56 AM
Because they are shitholes set up by intellectuals as "social projects." They are not answers to our problems, they are an escape from them. Workers have to WORK, they can't be off in the woods living the green life and smelling flowers all day.
What if enough people "escaped"? Couldn't that be or cause a revolution in itself?
That is logistically impossible. Not to mention the pointlessness of it. If a significant enough ammount of people to cause a revolution would move to a commune, why would they not just take over the means of production WHERE THEY LIVE? [/b]
Right now all the leftists and potential revolutionary soldiers are scattered. If communes became big, they could organize plus just the fact that they withdrew from proletariat lives is a slap in the face to the establishment.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:53 AM
Right now all the leftists and potential revolutionary soldiers are scattered.
Are they? some are. But there are national, regional and even international federations, parties and organisations which have varying membership. Of course the state of our movement is probably similar to my hair in the morning, but to say we're not together and organised is ridiculous.


If communes became big, they could organize plus just the fact that they withdrew from proletariat lives is a slap in the face to the establishment.

The establishment wont care. All they care about is having power, and making profit, a commune in no way challenges this. If anything it's a relief.

[An archist]

So what of you set up a commune in an area where lots of people live and you organise activities for everyone?
Some of those people might start thinking: "hey, their lifestyle if way better then ours, I wanna live like that too!" That's a sort of revolution too, but instead of changing the whole system and ending up with people dissatisfied about your new system, you create your own.
Off course, you'd need to organise to kepe the police out of your commune, violent claches with the forces of order will occur inevitably.
I think starting communes (or squats) is quite a good tactic in fighting capitalism

[liberationjunky]

Originally posted by AlexJohnson+Sep 3 2006, 12:53 AM--> (AlexJohnson @ Sep 3 2006, 12:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:54 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 01:56 AM
Because they are shitholes set up by intellectuals as "social projects." They are not answers to our problems, they are an escape from them. Workers have to WORK, they can't be off in the woods living the green life and smelling flowers all day.
What if enough people "escaped"? Couldn't that be or cause a revolution in itself?
That is logistically impossible. Not to mention the pointlessness of it. If a significant enough ammount of people to cause a revolution would move to a commune, why would they not just take over the means of production WHERE THEY LIVE?
Right now all the leftists and potential revolutionary soldiers are scattered. If communes became big, they could organize plus just the fact that they withdrew from proletariat lives is a slap in the face to the establishment. [/b]
Exactly i think communes are great and could possibley help a revolution. If they became more popular the ideas would be understood by the public and people with similar beliefs have a place to go. Also, if all the communes got together (if their were more) it could deffently help bring on a revolution.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:53 AM



Right now all the leftists and potential revolutionary soldiers are scattered.

Thats actually a good thing in some ways. The point is not to get all the leftists together, its to get the people to have revolutionary class conciousness. The more agitators over a wider area, the more of a chance we can do that.


If communes became big, they could organize plus just the fact that they withdrew from proletariat lives is a slap in the face to the establishment.

This is a really daft view of industrial society and how it works. The working class is the revolutionary class because of its relationship to the means of production. By getting everyone to give up industrial society (which is impossible, there is no way this could happen) the class would be giving up its position in class society. We would all become a bunch of nutters living in the woods.


So what of you set up a commune in an area where lots of people live and you organise activities for everyone?

When REAL communes happen, they are insurrections. Workers take over the means or production in their communities. That is revolution, and that is how it will happen.


Some of those people might start thinking: "hey, their lifestyle if way better then ours, I wanna live like that too!" That's a sort of revolution too, but instead of changing the whole system and ending up with people dissatisfied about your new system, you create your own.

This is called lifestylism. Lifestylism does not work and it is usually proposed by petty-bourgeois students who do no real work. You ask why there are not many communes and this is exactly why, its lifestylism.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:18 PM
When REAL communes happen, they are insurrections. Workers take over the means or production in their communities. That is revolution, and that is how it will happen.


This is called lifestylism. Lifestylism does not work and it is usually proposed by petty-bourgeois students who do no real work. You ask why there are not many communes and this is exactly why, its lifestylism.
To the first bit: indeed maybe I didn't make myself clear enough: that's how I see it too: people standing up and destroying the authorities of theri community, taking over the means of production
others might join them or follow their example.

To the second bit:
What's so bad about that? people don't want capitalism and create an alternative society, without forcing others to share their views. The only problem I see is that they will get attacked by the forces of order, but that'll happen in any revolution.

[YSR]

Please don't call yourself an anarchist if you're going to continue to embrace these bizarre middle-class delusions.

The commune comes when we take what is ours. Retreating from our enemies is absolutely silly and counter-productive.

[violencia.Proletariat]

What's so bad about that? people don't want capitalism and create an alternative society, without forcing others to share their views. The only problem I see is that they will get attacked by the forces of order, but that'll happen in any revolution.

Whats wrong with this is that the people who do it call themselves revolutionaries. Lifestylism is not revolutionary and it never will be. It is isolating yourself from the problem while claiming to be fighting it. It is a pointless tactic because the proletariat can not live outside of capitalism. They must phsyically destroy it.

If hippies and lifestylists want to have commuens and dumpster dive to survive, fine. They shall not however, call themselves revolutionaries and soil the name of our theories.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:32 PM
If hippies and lifestylists want to have commuens and dumpster dive to survive, fine. They shall not however, call themselves revolutionaries and soil the name of our theories.
Ok, there I agree with you, it's not revolutionary, but I still think it can be a good start to organise.
What's wrong with having a spot where you aren't bothered by the police?
It's not revolutionary, but it's a good place to organise protests or actions.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by An archist+Sep 4 2006, 07:40 AM--> (An archist @ Sep 4 2006, 07:40 AM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 05:32 PM
If hippies and lifestylists want to have commuens and dumpster dive to survive, fine. They shall not however, call themselves revolutionaries and soil the name of our theories.
Ok, there I agree with you, it's not revolutionary, but I still think it can be a good start to organise.
What's wrong with having a spot where you aren't bothered by the police?
It's not revolutionary, but it's a good place to organise protests or actions. [/b]
Communes aren't safe from police, what on earth gives you that idea? Besides, if it really required you being out in the middle of nowhere to plan an action (which it doesn't) you could just rent a cabin.

[An archist]

I never said a commune needs to be out in the middle of nowhere, nor did I say communes would be completely safe from police.

When I think about a commune, I think of it as a large area in or nearby a city. And the residents would protect themselves from the police, making sure they aren't bothered by them, I know of course that if they really want to, they'll get in, but if you defend the place well enough, it'll be hard for them to do so and they'll think twice before spending huge amounts of money to evict the place.
Sort off like a really big squat, now how would a place like that (or even a relatively small squat) be bad for a revolution or leftism in general?

[KickMcCann]

I live in an urban commune and it works, but besides this one working example I live in, I have seen dozens fail. The primary reason is immaturity, most of the people who have failed did so because they believed that laziness, irresponsibility, and even filth are all characteristics of communal living. Most of the people who did try were anarchists and radical green hippies who despite possessing the spirit, ideology and desire of communal living failed to possess the level-headed rationality and inner-strength to keep it going.
Sharing a living environment with many people has wonderful benefits such as a fulfilling life, a solid sense of community, a sense of belonging, and having a strong support network of trustworthy friends. It is also incredibly affordable and economic. Luxuries impossible to enjoy on your own such as high-speed internet, cable television, a phone line, gas and electric become easily available when the bills are split between 7 or more people. The lifestyle is the natural way of human life and in direct contradiction to the lonely, selfish, individualistic culture of capitalism that destroys people more than it lifts them up. The sanest people can be found in successful communes.
But all great things come with responsibility and this life is serious, not a fairy tale. If you and your fellow comrades cannot clean up after yourselves, washing your dishes, cleaning, repairing, and maintaining your common and private spaces, keeping the doors locked in a bad neighborhood, organize and pay the bills on time, and maintain a commitment to direct democracy in the running of communal affairs, then the commune will degenerate and collapse.
Communes are not illegal in my area and are not revolutionary or rebellious except in the sense that its members abandon the capitalist lifestyle to make a serious commitment to the more humanistic communal lifestyle. Most vistors to our home are quite jealous of our lifestyle in comparison to their own, but more importantly they should be inspired. We cannot force or direct anyone to adopt this lifestyle, but gladly offer advice to those who desire it. It is not an impossible task and with a solid group of commited, serious, responsible people in can easily succeed and bloom into something wonderful. But it takes work, commitment, common sense, and maturity.