Socialist communities

[Dimentio]

If some organisation bought up land, and erected buildings and production facilities meant to be driven according to egalitarian and distributionist principles, and then invited for example 5.000 people to colonise that swathe of land (giving them direct influence through control of the means of production), would you join that settlement?

[spartan]

As much as i would like to i ultimately would'nt as the Capitalists would always attack and undermine any efforts of ours that look like they are succeeding (For obvious reasons as the Capitalists dont want people to associate Socialism with success as it could lead to the demise of their Capitalist system which the Capitalists of course dont want).

In other words, unless this setting up of Socialist communities becomes a popular thing where thousands of them spring up and can provide community support for each other making them all self sufficient, it is ultimately pointless and a waste of everyone that is involved in the project's time.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated 'phalansteres', of establishing “Home Colonies”, or setting up a 'Little Icaria' — duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem — and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois." - Critical-Utopian Socialists (The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#c)).

[Dimentio]

Why would the project be compelled to try to ask for money from the bourgeoisie, since it's fairly easy to start a business, using both (legally) clean and unclean methods. One does'nt even need to have any employees.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:39 am
As much as i would like to i ultimately would'nt as the Capitalists would always attack and undermine any efforts of ours that look like they are succeeding (For obvious reasons as the Capitalists dont want people to associate Socialism with success as it could lead to the demise of their Capitalist system which the Capitalists of course dont want).

In other words, unless this setting up of Socialist communities becomes a popular thing where thousands of them spring up and can provide community support for each other making them all self sufficient, it is ultimately pointless and a waste of everyone that is involved in the project's time.
If we say that the communities administrated a set of cooperative businesses which exported surplus in return for other resources, it could still get a profit and thus buy more land and develop more infrastructure.

To opt for total self-sufficiency at the beginning is a crack dream. But one could at least build a fundament for an own infrastructure.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The problem with this is that the bourgeois state is still existent along with the conditions inherently existent under capitalism (i.e. the ruling class and its means of exploiting the proletariat through the coercive institution of the state). In regards to a community of this kind-- it simply cannot exist with the such forces still in existence. It is simply pointless because the bourgeois state obviously is seeking the interests of its ruling class and would act against the such by all means to ensure that their state is not threatened, by making it certain that more of the such communities do not develop.

[spartan]

If we say that the communities administrated a set of cooperative businesses which exported surplus in return for other resources, it could still get a profit and thus buy more land and develop more infrastructure.

To opt for total self-sufficiency at the beginning is a crack dream. But one could at least build a fundament for an own infrastructure.
I see your point but if something like this was going to be done we would need alot of time and patience to see it through (As well as money!).

Add to that the constant undermining attacks by the Capitalists and pro Capitalist media then it will take a very strong community to get through this and weather the storm as it were.

I am of the opinion though that as we will be a Socialist minority, right next door to the Capitalist majority, that we will be eventually forced to call it quits.

[Dimentio]

I do not mean that such communities are the total answer to all problems, but that they could serve mainly as a experimental workshops for implementations of theories.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Such communities have existed in the past and present, to an extent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

[Comrade Nadezhda]

it can't be considered of relevance when the bourgeois state is still existent.

[spartan]

Such communities have existed in the past and present, to an extent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
The trouble is Everday Anarchy that most of those communities were during times when isolation from the rest of the world was still a possibility.

Nowadays, in our modern world, there is virtually no chance of complete isolation as the Bourgeoisie has had the whole world navigated for possible living spaces or areas to exploit.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

it can't be said that it the such is possible under the current conditions-- i.e. the bourgeois state, its expansion across the world, etc.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:20 am

Such communities have existed in the past and present, to an extent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
The trouble is Everday Anarchy that most of those communities were during times when isolation from the rest of the world was still a possibility.

Nowadays, in our modern world, there is virtually no chance of complete isolation as the Bourgeoisie has had the whole world navigated for possible living spaces or areas to exploit.
It should of course not be isolated islands. They should interact with the exterior world. Otherwise, it will be impossible to gain a surplus with which to expand and gain control over the means of production necessary to reach autonomy.

That is why such a community needs to control external firms.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The capitalist modes of production will ultimately outperform these communities.

The regions needed to maintain a successful socialist system require more than just a singular community. That one community would have to participate with the outside world to acquire the resources and products not made by its participants.

You're wanting to make this a non-isolationist system is a step-up from what some utopian socialists advocate. It shows that you've thought it out.

However, the question remains of how they are going to operate independently of the state and use land owned by the state. Do you mean for this community should purchase goods made outside of the community and then begin the communist means of production?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

the problem is that the bourgeois state will make its development impossible-- it will be seen as a threat to their capitalist ways, cannot be expected they will not act against it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 07:13 pm
the problem is that the bourgeois state will make its development impossible-- it will be seen as a threat to their capitalist ways, cannot be expected they will not act against it.
That's slightly absurd.

The capitalist state won't allow for the expansion of these communities, but it certainly has better things to do than track down small projects and spoil them. The state would no sooner react to a commune popping up than it would a tribe or Amish community. If the capitalists saw it as a threat, then they would react.

The problem is a commodity market will still have influence on the community. Also, the community would have to purchase items from capitalist sources.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:26 am
The capitalist modes of production will ultimately outperform these communities.

The regions needed to maintain a successful socialist system require more than just a singular community. That one community would have to participate with the outside world to acquire the resources and products not made by its participants.

You're wanting to make this a non-isolationist system is a step-up from what some utopian socialists advocate. It shows that you've thought it out.

However, the question remains of how they are going to operate independently of the state and use land owned by the state. Do you mean for this community should purchase goods made outside of the community and then begin the communist means of production?
The land must be owned by the organisation behind the communities. Besides, it should not be one community, but maybe five which are started simulatenously. The organisation should set up firms to trade with the outside world, and profit will be used to gradually increase the sufficiency of the communities in question.

Of course, the communities should produce some of their own stuff, and try to accomplish that more cheaply than the capitalists by use of automated production.