Communes

[Sensible Socialist]

Do you believe it is a productive tactic for leftists to form communes, in order to prove that a hierarchial system of power is not needed?

I'm not advocating that be the only tactic used, but does the general public need concrete examples to look at, instead of abstract theory?

[¿Que?]

Do you believe it is a productive tactic for leftists to form communes, in order to prove that a hierarchial system of power is not needed?

I'm not advocating that be the only tactic used, but does the general public need concrete examples to look at, instead of abstract theory?

I don't think that's why you would build a commune. For me, the purpose of communes is to offer an alternative vision to capitalism, but one that also serves the purpose of resisting it as well. As such, a commune would seem to have to be a living growing thing, more of a social movement, I guess. If you simply have an isolated settlement, that doesn't grow, doesn't affect anything, and people rarely notice, then no, I am basically against that.

[Savage]

Do you mean like a squat sort of thing? A lot of small communes exist around the world with a basic leftist ideal, some have inspired people but not really in a revolutionary way. If you mean a large scale commune to serve as a practical example of socialism (or whatever you would call it) you would be advocating a modern day Paris Commune of sorts, however it would certainly not be a peaceful ordeal establishing such a commune and would definitely be repressed, however it could serve as a good example for revolution in the modem world.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I'd be right next to you attempting to establish another Paris Commune, but if you mean acquiring a plot of land and having everyone live on it peacefully, then no. You'd basically be doing what's been done hundreds of times and has never turned anyone into a revolutionary. The only way to "prove" communism works, is for the workers to revolt and realize their ability to take the reigns and conduct their lives and societies on a democratic basis. Without the revolution, there is no "proof".

[Sensible Socialist]

Do you mean like a squat sort of thing? A lot of small communes exist around the world with a basic leftist ideal, some have inspired people but not really in a revolutionary way. If you mean a large scale commune to serve as a practical example of socialism (or whatever you would call it) you would be advocating a modern day Paris Commune of sorts, however it would certainly not be a peaceful ordeal establishing such a commune and would definitely be repressed, however it could serve as a good example for revolution in the modem world.

Not a squat. Pooling resources, getting land, and establishing some sort of cooperative, democratic ideals with regard to a business and the society of the commune in general. Following the law, I'm not sure how it would be actively repressed.

[¿Que?]

Not a squat. Pooling resources, getting land, and establishing some sort of cooperative, democratic ideals with regard to a business and the society of the commune in general. Following the law, I'm not sure how it would be actively repressed.

If you truly are resisting capital(ism), then it'll be repressed, law or no law. Point is to be able to defend yourself, though, both politically and physically.

[Savage]

How big would you intend this commune to be? What you're describing is something that would rely entirely on the market that it would exist within, to survive the commune would have to produce commodities to be bought. In order to maintain leftist principles the revenue from this could be distributed equally amongst the inhabitants of the commune and could be used to benefit the entire commune in general, but whether this would equate socialism is entirely a matter of opinion.

[Sensible Socialist]

How big would you intend this commune to be? What you're describing is something that would rely entirely on the market that it would exist within, to survive the commune would have to produce commodities to be bought. In order to maintain leftist principles the revenue from this could be distributed equally amongst the inhabitants of the commune and could be used to benefit the entire commune in general, but whether this would equate socialism is entirely a matter of opinion.

I don't intent to be making a commune any time soon. This is just food for thought.

If not socialism, as others may disagree, then at least an example that workplace democract is a viable and productive option.

[Acostak3]

Communes have a tendency to fail because they are isolated and the general framework of society is capitalist. So, if anything they give communism a bad reputation.

[bailey_187]

your not going to be taking over the means of production though, you are going to be gathering your own primitve MOP and using them collectivly. It may be a Commune, but it isnt Communism in the sense of it being "the actual result of the working class movement"

[Sensible Socialist]

your not going to be taking over the means of production though, you are going to be gathering your own primitve MOP and using them collectivly. It may be a Commune, but it isnt Communism in the sense of it being "the actual result of the working class movement"

I don't believe I, nor anyone else, stated that it would be communism. After all, communism will not come about after a revolutionary period of socialism. To think examples of cooperative means of production are, or would directly result in, instances of communism is naive.

These merely would be examples that can be shown to the working class to prove that democratically-organized workplaces can, and will, succeed.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

There are some examples of workplaces being run on syndicalist or cooperativist principles around the world. The most successful, to my knowledge, is the Mondragon Corporation based in the Basque Country. However, no peacefully established commune has ever won swathes of the working class to the cause for their liberation.

[hatzel]

The entire system [the state] would vanish without a trace if the people began to constitute themselves as a people apart from the state. However, the people have not yet grasped this. They have not yet understood that the state will fulfill a certain function and remain an inevitable necessity as long as long as its alternative, the socialist reality, does not exist.

A table can be overturned and a window can be smashed. However, those who believe that the state is also a thing or a fetish that can be overturned or smashed are sophists and believers in the Word. The state is a social relationship; a certain way of people relating to one another. It can be destroyed by creating new social relationships; i.e., by people relating to one another differently.


The absolute monarchy said: I am the state. We, who we have imprisoned ourselves in the absolute state, must realise the truth: we are the state! And we will be the state as long as we are nothing different; as long as we have not yet created the institutions necessary for a true community and a true society of human beings.

Gustav Landauer (from 'Weak statesmen, weaker people!')

One might say he'd agree with the idea of communes, and, as I'd agree with him, I'd subscribe to the idea, too. I can't see it being a negative step by any stretch of the imagination, though I accept that it may require a rather more developed network of several interlinked communes for it to really constitute a positive step. Otherwise the commune will just have to sell their collective goods on the capitalist market, to then buy the necessities they could not produce themselves. Of course a network of communes, each producing different goods, adapted to their location and the skills of their inhabitants, would be much more desirable, and, if sharing could take place between such communes, the reliance on 'external' products would be greatly reduced. Otherwise I'm sure it would just lead to a life of potatoes and little else.

[¿Que?]

your not going to be taking over the means of production though, you are going to be gathering your own primitve MOP and using them collectivly. It may be a Commune, but it isnt Communism in the sense of it being "the actual result of the working class movement"

And why not? Could not a successful school occupation develop into a commune? And as such, is that not seizing the means of intellectual production?

[Enragé]

it all depends on what u mean by commune, but part of your concern in organising should be 'to prove that a hierarchial system of power is not needed'.

[UjimaTribesman]

Do you believe it is a productive tactic for leftists to form communes, in order to prove that a hierarchial system of power is not needed?

I'm not advocating that be the only tactic used, but does the general public need concrete examples to look at, instead of abstract theory?

Communes or "Intentional Communities" are In my opinion a great way to actually practice cooperative living, and to show on lookers how a society could operate with communal ownership of resources.

I don't intent to be making a commune any time soon. This is just food for thought.

If not socialism, as others may disagree, then at least an example that workplace democract is a viable and productive option.

to me intentional communities have a bad reputation, and I agree that they are a good way to practice economic democracy, even if they don't technically match the textbook definition of this or that.

I don't believe I, nor anyone else, stated that it would be communism. After all, communism will not come about after a revolutionary period of socialism. To think examples of cooperative means of production are, or would directly result in, instances of communism is naive.

These merely would be examples that can be shown to the working class to prove that democratically-organized workplaces can, and will, succeed.

I'm agree.