How many of you live in communes?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I really don't get what's feudal about people sharing their stuff in a not world-spanning organization.

I didn't say that communes were feudal, I was trying to explain the communist attitude to the market. This is important because a lot of "leftists" are opposed to markets and the cash nexus in general, and don't distinguish the left opposition to markets from the right one.

Communes, in the present system, are capitalist, since they are embedded in a capitalist world-system.

I know a commune doesn't abolish the market. One swallow does not a summer make, got it. I'm not saying here's how you bring on communism, I'm saying I don't understand why living in a world of fewer market relations isn't preferable to you.

Maybe commune isn't the right word for it. You could live your life exactly as you do now, only you would connect with people, that share your views and share all your belongings with one-another. So if a member of your group came along and took some tools from you or something, he wouldn't need to pay you, but all his services and possessions would also be freely available to you. If private property is immoral, you're actually immoral for not doing that.

How is this any different from the way most people live? I borrow and give books to my friends, I don't sell them. I don't charge my partner for the meals I cook. When I visit someone's house during the spring break, I don't have to pay for a ticket. I let other people use the results of my calculations. And so on.

Socialists, at least Marxist socialists, don't think private property is immoral - if they did, they would oppose the move from feudal to capitalist relations.

And by the way, this entire conversation is about the mode of distribution, whereas socialists are focused on the mode of production.

[The Jay]

I could see myself living in a communal household but do not currently do that. I've heard from people that do that it can be hard sometimes but then again living with anyone is hard sometimes.

As for your thinking of 'leading by example' I disagree with that in terms of communal housing. While it would be great if people shared houses I don't think that such is necessary for agitating the general public. I think that living in this collective way could also lead towards an insular subculture. The topic is vague so I don't know how to answer it better than this.

[Creative Destruction]

I would kinda agree with that actually. I think property rights become redundant once things are no longer scarce.

Good. So, you agree with Marx.

But I really don't think that post scarcity can be achieved in all goods, because it would pretty much mean, that anything could be obtained instantly at no cost.

"Post-scarcity" doesn't necessarily mean achieving total abundance with all goods. You have to examine what "scarcity" actually is and, for the most part, it is artificial scarcity. Food and housing are two big commodities that are only artificially scarce, and they're artificially scarce because of capitalism.

[Vanguard1917]

No, I know that communism should be global etc, but if a country turned sorta commie tomorrow, by banning private property & money, wouldn't you rejoice? If yes, then moving towards communism on a smaller scale should be a good idea, therefore communes would be an acceptable means to an end, no?

If socialism can't work in one country alone, it's not gonna work within the confines of one commune.

I really don't get what's feudal about people sharing their stuff in a not world-spanning organization. I know a commune doesn't abolish the market. One swallow does not a summer make, got it. I'm not saying here's how you bring on communism, I'm saying I don't understand why living in a world of fewer market relations isn't preferable to you.

Socialism isn't about just abolishing the market though. You seem to envision socialism as some ethical project based on 'sharing stuff more'. Socialism means a radical overhaul of social production under the control and management of the producers, in order to massively increase the productivity of labour so that the conditions for a classless society - material abundance - can be brought about. This is unlikely to be achieved in a commune of hippies, compost heaps and organic carrots.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If socialism can't work in one country alone, it's not gonna work within the confines of one commune.

Anarchy in one punk house!

Sincerely though, just as capitalism will not collapse suddenly and uniformly, it seems to me that there's something to be said for experimenting with different social forms in an immediate setting. I agree, there should be no illusion that such experiments constitute "socialism" in-and-of-themselves, but, rather, they may have practical use in pushing forward struggle. This is potentially true both on a bread-and-butter level, and in terms of creating spaces for political development.

Of course, as with countries, if they don't proliferate, and expand in scope, spilling over the narrow boundaries of a housing arrangement or w/e, or course they degenerate.

Socialism isn't about just abolishing the market though. You seem to envision socialism as some ethical project based on 'sharing stuff more'. Socialism means a radical overhaul of social production under the control and management of the producers, in order to massively increase the productivity of labour so that the conditions for a classless society - material abundance - can be brought about.

While I'd agree with your first point ("Sharing stuff more" isn't the essence of communism), I'd have to disagree in very strong terms with your definition of socialism. An appeal to "increasing the productivity of labour" and "material abundance" is laden with all sorts of assumptions. "Material abundance" exists regardless of technical organization (though certainly it's at risk due to the massive environmental degradation wrought by a system that fetishizes production). There is an implicit ethic in your description, and its disturbing: an ethics of quantity. In a sense, it represents a bizarre inversion of the original wrong headed proposition. "Not sharing more stuff! More stuff shared!"

The ethical essence of the communist project, however, doesn't really concern "stuff" at all, but, rather, overcoming the relations-between-things in restoring relations-between-people.

This is unlikely to be achieved in a commune of hippies, compost heaps and organic carrots.

I concur whole-heartedly. My point vis-a-vis "communes" (of hippies or otherwise) is that it's amazing how useful a supply of fresh local vegetables can be for organizing. "Food" is a pretty central and immediate question that needs to be grappled with - it's a survival question.

[Vanguard1917]

Anarchy in one punk house!

Sincerely though, just as capitalism will not collapse suddenly and uniformly, it seems to me that there's something to be said for experimenting with different social forms in an immediate setting. I agree, there should be no illusion that such experiments constitute "socialism" in-and-of-themselves, but, rather, they may have practical use in pushing forward struggle. This is potentially true both on a bread-and-butter level, and in terms of creating spaces for political development.

You'd have to give concrete examples. In the case of what i referred to - a number of like-minded people deciding to live together to implement their principles in a 'commune' - it can only be a distraction and an attempt to withdraw from society rather than trying to change it.

The ethical essence of the communist project, however, doesn't really concern "stuff" at all, but, rather, overcoming the relations-between-things in restoring relations-between-people.

'Stuff' is actually at the core of the 'communist project', at least as understood by classical Marxism (Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc). Communism presupposes greater material abundance - i.e. the productive capacity necessary for the latter.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

- Marx (my emphasis)

My point vis-a-vis "communes" (of hippies or otherwise) is that it's amazing how useful a supply of fresh local vegetables can be for organizing. "Food" is a pretty central and immediate question that needs to be grappled with - it's a survival question.

Yes, food is pretty central. That's why we need to bring food production under socialist planning. Arduous and time-inefficient hippy farms on roof tops and gardens might serve as a source of self-gratification for those involved, but they're not going to do anything in the way of meeting the calorie requirements of 7 billion individuals.