Communalism.

[(A)]

Communalism is "a theory of government or a system of government in which independent communes participate in a federation" and "the principles and practice of communal ownership"

I am Democracy and I am here to share my opinions on different socialist and moral subjects and ideas. My ideas are not set and never will be so I am open to new ideas but I warn you I enjoy a good bit of banter so you want to discuss a subject I would be happy to play devils advocate.

Back to point.

I have been reading the book 'The Soviet Power' and in it they discuss the successes of Communism in Russia. While I am not certian of what caused its fall I have always fell on the small government side of the spectrum. so when I read about the idea of Munipalism, Minarcism and Socialist Libertarianism I believe I found the society I want to live in.

A society based on small community's where there is a decent world that will give all a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security & where all are free to influence there community threw true and direct democracy supported by a rich and through constitution.

Nations not ruled by Representative governments, Despots or a central planing but regions who can self manage and work independently for the greater good of all.

I want to hear your thoughts on this subject.
~Problems with the idea.
~Troubles with implementation.
~Things that the idea solves.
~Where I can find a place to live like this.

Thanks for listening.

[Comrade #138672]

It is too decentralized, I think.

It is also a bit idealist to think that there can exist such a place within worldwide capitalism. The existence of nations entails capitalism.

[PhoenixAsh]

discuss the successes of Communism in Russia.

Ok, well that was basically a shit book then. There was no communism in Russia,...ever. And a book with a sound historical analysis and a concept of what communism actually is and what the USSR actually was....would be a far better start to get a good concept of why it failed.

[(A)]

Ok, well that was basically a shit book then. There was no communism in Russia,...ever. And a book with a sound historical analysis and a concept of what communism actually is and what the USSR actually was....would be a far better start to get a good concept of why it failed.

Can you elaborate more?
I hear a lot of conflicting things and I want others thoughts.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Can you elaborate more?
I hear a lot of conflicting things and I want others thoughts.

Since 'communism' is a classless, moneyless and stateless society, as Marx describes it, it becomes pretty obvious that the Soviet Union never achieved communism.

[Sabot Cat]

I like communalism, but I don't think the Soviet Union was anything like that for similar reasons as other posters.

[(A)]

Thanks for the input.

It is too decentralized, I think.

It is also a bit idealist to think that there can exist such a place within worldwide capitalism. The existence of nations entails capitalism.

In regards to decentralization how is a centralized economy better then a municipal or regional one?

And yes capitalism should fall but what about communes like Israeli
Kibbutz and what have you. They manage to create oases of socialism where they rely very little if not at all on the capitalist world and within there walls make there own rule (Generalizing on the idea not citing actual cases.)

[(A)]

I just found this and thought it was an interesting read. Its starts a bit slow but picks up by the third part.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist...MMNL2.MCW.html

What do you think?

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Thanks for the input.

In regards to decentralization how is a centralized economy better then a municipal or regional one?

And yes capitalism should fall but what about communes like Israeli
Kibbutz and what have you. They manage to create oases of socialism where they rely very little if not at all on the capitalist world and within there walls make there own rule (Generalizing on the idea not citing actual cases.)

The problem with an excess of decentralization is that it can give one region too much power over another. If your local government has jurisdiction over the only salt mine within hundreds of miles, you can tell your next door neighbors they're going to have to send you ten million dollars and fifty sex slaves every year if they want access to a resource integral to their survival.

That's not to say that decentralization is a bad thing, in moderation. I think that when it comes to things like energy, construction, education, and certain types of agriculture, local communes and governments should have a tremendous amount of power. But other areas--like interstate and international transportation systems, mining, telecommunications, banks, and civil rights protections--should be fields dealt with on a much more centralized basis.

As for the kibbutz system, it's not doing well as of late. There are only about 200 left in Israel. Most of them have given up on an egalitarian wage structure and started to pay executives more. Kids are starting to become cynical and are leaving for the outside world. That's the tip of the iceberg.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...vor-wanes.html

And unfortunately, these communes require the outside world and capitalism to survive. They have organized themselves entirely around single industries, like dairy or manufacturing pipes, and sell their products to the outside world. Without that cash, their communities would collapse overnight. That's not socialism. It's just a tightly-knit network of corporations. Capitalism.

[Comrade Jacob]

I think we should have communes but having just communes is not a way to run a country.

[(A)]

I think we should have communes but having just communes is not a way to run a country.

I have a question about your signature comrade.

Economic Left/Right: -9.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

Does -5.8 mean 5.8 away from the center point or is it .8 away?

I mean are you 50/50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian or 75/25?

I just don't understand if center is 0.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The Soviet system was obviously more preferable than the contemporary Western neo-liberal democracies. Communes however are weird and suck and every time I've lived/participated in one it's always made me extremely uncomfortable. I'd prefer radical hermitism.

[Comrade Jacob]

I have a question about your signature comrade.


Does -5.8 mean 5.8 away from the center point or is it .8 away?

I mean are you 50/50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian or 75/25?

I just don't understand if center is 0.

It means I'm half way down social libertarian
5.8 would be half way up authoritarian
I'm in the middle of the green basically.

[Thirsty Crow]

T
That's not to say that decentralization is a bad thing, in moderation. I think that when it comes to things like energy, construction, education, and certain types of agriculture, local communes and governments should have a tremendous amount of power. But other areas--like interstate and international transportation systems, mining, telecommunications, banks, and civil rights protections--should be fields dealt with on a much more centralized basis.

The question is what kind of power.

In short, to take up your example, units of local administration as well as workplace committees in cases of agricultural production might have autonomy in the sense of setting their own targets for production, selection of types of foodstuff to produce and so on.

On the other hand, and this is the position I'd advocate, such units should not be autonomous in that sense because of social production for need (presupposing the abolition of the commodity form, consequently money) which entails that production is organized with society wide needs as the ultimate target. Any local autonomy would appear incompatible with this, in the sense I sketched: setting quantities as targets for production, and setting kinds of foodstuffs without concern for social needs (meaning society wide needs; it is also reasonable to assume that people working and living there would not revert back to communal petty production only for their immediate needs).

Therefore one conclusion would be that such forms of social organization represent "atavistic" remnants of the immediate capitalist past (for instance, the autonomy of the enterprise as a productive unit).

[Comrade Jacob]

I have a question about your signature comrade.


Does -5.8 mean 5.8 away from the center point or is it .8 away?

I mean are you 50/50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian or 75/25?

I just don't understand if center is 0.

Here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/char...3Cdiv%20style=

[(A)]

The problem with an excess of decentralization is that it can give one region too much power over another. If your local government has jurisdiction over the only salt mine within hundreds of miles, you can tell your next door neighbors they're going to have to send you ten million dollars and fifty sex slaves every year if they want access to a resource integral to their survival.

Well that is clearly a Capitalist Example. Communalism is a confederacy of Communes. The term used is A Commune of Communes. The "State" if you want to use that word would be made up of a confederacy of every commune. The Salt mine would be "owned" by every commune as there is no such thing as private property. The commune would work it and then the salt would become socialized.

That's not to say that decentralization is a bad thing, in moderation. I think that when it comes to things like energy, construction, education, and certain types of agriculture, local communes and governments should have a tremendous amount of power. But other areas--like interstate and international transportation systems, mining, telecommunications, banks, and civil rights protections--should be fields dealt with on a much more centralized basis.

Banks... anyway yes the commune of communes would decide how to handle these things. There is no reason to have a federal government telling everyone what to do. An example is the canadian government is taking the power to decide on building codes from the municipality in B.C. I mean why ugh.

I think we should have communes but having just communes is not a way to run a country.

Hence Communalism. A limited state formed from a confederacy of Communes. Or if you prefer Libertarian socialism I minimal state answerable to the municipality's.

The question is what kind of power.

In short, to take up your example, units of local administration as well as workplace committees in cases of agricultural production might have autonomy in the sense of setting their own targets for production, selection of types of foodstuff to produce and so on.

On the other hand, and this is the position I'd advocate, such units should not be autonomous in that sense because of social production for need (presupposing the abolition of the commodity form, consequently money) which entails that production is organized with society wide needs as the ultimate target. Any local autonomy would appear incompatible with this, in the sense I sketched: setting quantities as targets for production, and setting kinds of foodstuffs without concern for social needs (meaning society wide needs; it is also reasonable to assume that people working and living there would not revert back to communal petty production only for their immediate needs).

Hence the necessity for a confederacy. In the same way you would advocate any form of government be it centralized, decentralized or distributed. Each commune would have a equal say in how the whole was run to an extent. Limiting the power of state to only nessesity preventing a USSR style state.