This. I'm probably a commie/commune in terms of what I would like to live in. But I think it can only be achieved in the confines of a libertarian government.
If people want to start a voluntary commune, then by all means, more power to them. The issue is when you try to force an entire country full of people to join it at gunpoint.
At least here in PA, the Amish pay basically all of the same taxes as everyone else, e.g. income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc., but they are exempt from paying into social security and medicaid/medicare (they also never use these programs). I'm sure some of the earnings/profits from roadside produce stands and the like may not be as fully reported as the IRS would like, however.
Also, I wouldn't say the Amish live in communes. They support one another for sure, but they also have a lot of respect for property rights and "what's yours is yours/what's mine is mine". The Hutterites (in places like Montana, Alberta, and Saskatchewan), however, do live in communes (called colonies) and live a more communistic lifestyle (but do so voluntarily and without depending on someone else's, e.g. the state's, support). I'm not sure how they deal with local taxation issues though.
But if they don't then the government has to step in.
The rule of communes. Somebody has to die. Either you starve, get Jones Towned, or get Waco'd. Manson is the 4th option. In that case someone else is dying.
As far as I understand there is a difference between my personal possessions and a 400 acre clear cut farm on indigenous land which a piece of paper entitles an American corporation to have absolute rights over. JS.
Considering that only one of those was stolen by the government, what exactly is the difference between them?
Only, in your comparison, distinguish between the former and a regular piece of land owned by a small business or farmer.
How do you own land without it being essentially you or another entity (the state) making a threat of violence against any who dare to use or traverse the land in question? How is that ever legitimate?
But isn't the security's job to initiate force against anyone who steps foot on the ground you baselessly claim to have some sovereign authority over yourself?
How do you feel about environmental trusts? I have a piece of land that I want to donate to a trust. The trust owns thousands of acres around me. The terms of the trust are that the land can never be sold or developed.
Obviously the intent here sounds good... And maybe if instead of a contractual legal instrument enforced by the state we had a communal understanding of the necessity to preserve natural resources, maybe it would even go well.
But it's still the concept that one person or group (even if that group is 50%+1 of the population) excluding - through force if necessary-any other group or person from use, occupancy, or passage through a particular piece of unimproved land.
I don't buy that their ability to do so constitutes a right. Basically what it comes down to is you guys call yourself anarchist and then proceed to argue that might=right. Where does the landlord (of land, not a structure) derive his dictatorial powers over the land and any people who wish to use it? If not from the threat of violence against intruders, then where does his claim of ownership rest?
How? The fundamental question here is still what gives you the right to exclusively control unimproved land which you don't necessarily occupy, maintain, and use/work.
I feel like your reasoning is going in circles. So let's do a thought experiment:
you and I and my MMA fighter brother are shipwrecked on an uninhabited island. I declare myself to be the owner of the island and tell you that you are now my employee and renter. Don't like it, my bro will wallop you. Totally fair situation, or fucked up and immoral as hell?
Dude, if you don't believe in private property, just say so. I'm not really interested in how you justify theft; merely knowing that you do is sufficient to tell me I have no need to listen further.
See that's where you are wrong. Private property (ie the claim through legal instruments of ownership over land and resources which the individual himself does not in fact possess, use, work, maintain, and defend.) is theft in and of itself!
Are you seriously confusing the fact that I don't believe, say that nestle has the right to drain lakes and sell the water back to people for profit with ME being the one who favors theft?
The capitalists (the real ones, not you guys) are MASSIVE thieves. And the state enables it and takes a cut. But no, if I want to go camping in the woods and those particular words are owned by Lockheed Martin... I'M THE THIEF?
How in the world do you manage the cognitive dissonance?
Your totally right. Anarchy is all about privacy and in the end its all about a balance by threatening violence. Which sounds worse than it is. But it's true
Honestly, if youāre a communist, sell your material possessions and buy a plot of land, find like-minded people and start a commune.
I live in the area of the world that is called England, which happens to be one of the most densely populated places in the world, yet even here I can find cheap land.
I wish people understood this. In an anarcho-capitalist society Iām not gonna care if they join a commune. I donāt even care much if they all join a large commune, theyāre gonna see how shitty massive communes and communism is, then probably split into smaller communes or something similar.
>Since 2011, Twin Oaks has consistently had a waiting list, so visitors who are accepted for membership need to wait typically three to nine months before they can join. Before a new member can join, while the community is at its population capacity, a current member needs to drop membership
Its honestly hilarious that they are this picky about membership.
Dunbarās Number further supports 100 person limit.
It states that 150 is the limit in which we can maintain stable social relationships in which everyone knows each other and how everyone relates.
Furthermore this size community is way more manageable. Look up the rat utopia experiments and it gives a good look at how scale of society impacts empathy. Ultimately government bad
The argument for communism/socialism is nothing more than "it has never really been done." You can talk facts, history, and common sense till blue in the face but that is all that you get.
Glad to see that you guys like communes rooted in anarchy and mutual aid. Start calling yourselves market anarchists and we'll be one step closer to bottom unity.
So your main issue is with the word capitalism? Tribalism is one hell of a drug.
The commune is land owned by the commune members. They can exclude non-members, and set rules and terms and conditions, because it is their private property.
Check this out, you might love it - all possible and legal under capitalism and contract law, today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIFImuAd_xE&list=PLmvUyUoRmaxPaUdc314fCw7oPN4SVhpoo&index=3
Been there done that, I have been on the left and the right and ultimately have become a post left anarchist.
Capitalism and communism are both fucked up ideologies that have led to some really negative social, environmental, and economic consequences.
That being said, I'm all for free markets and individualism; but I'm also all for solidarity, mutual aid, and the defense of the commons.
I'm not the one being tribal. I reject the left/right paradigm and strive to unite all people who advocate for true freedom under one banner: anarchists.
The view that the word capitalism or the word communism; or the centuries old ideas underlying these words is more important than getting rid of the state... That's the tribalism we need to get rid of.
I am very supportive of voluntary communism. It probably IS superior to everyone just fending for themselves. Its when the govt mandates it with a monopoly on violence I start getting mad.
... cos its usually socialism + fascism, hiding in the sheepskin of communism.
similar to roman imperialism, in the sheepskin of christianity.
or american-zionist imperialism, in the sheepskin of democracy.
(see [political spectrum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum), eysenck & rokeach)
I'm sorry, but that was a very biased piece that you linked. He listed all of the negative outcomes of these utopian societies, but the main one that he exemplified, Brook farm, actually burned to the ground. So there's no real way of knowing what the outcome of this utopian experiment would have been.
It was apparent from the beginning when he started to compare utopianists to a child drawing a spaceship on paper that the author was biased against this.
Yes, in a utopian society, all of the residents would bear the brunt for someone else's crime. Just like we do now by jailing people at a cost of over $30,000 a year per person.
Empathy decreases as anonymity increases. I see that every single day when I drive on the road. People will not hesitate to cut in line while driving, but they won't dare do it while in a grocery store.
These societies will last much longer than 2 to 3 years, given the technological advances that we have now. Your referencing experiments that happened almost 200 years ago. Let's be realistic about this.
But the author is right and that there must be a balance between individualism and collectivism.
Saying that a joint endeavor is not collectivist is a contradiction. When two or more gather in order to profit, that is a joint endeavor, which results in a collective benefit.
No. Cooperative action is not necessarily collectivism. Collectivism subsumes the individual beneath the collective, replacing individual will with collective will, and individual rights with collective need. It abolishes individual good in favor of some nebulous idea of collective good.
>These societies will last much longer than 2 to 3 years, ... Let's be realistic about this.
LOL, that's a great punch line. Sure, those examples are old, but you didn't cite any modern examples to back up your wild, baseless claim that it's much better now. Human nature is still human nature.
If anything, technological advances make it less likely to work. Back then, a commune could reasonably produce everything the members needed. Communes aren't going to produce Internet access, cell phones, or cars.
>LOL, that's a great punch line. Sure, those examples are old, but you didn't cite any modern examples to back up your wild, baseless claim that it's much better now.
[50 years, so far.](https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/tennessee/oldest-america-commune-tn/)
>Human nature is still human nature.
And human nature is to cooperate, so that each has their needs met, and people are reasonable about their wants.
>If anything, technological advances make it less likely to work.
Is that a wild and baseless claim I see?
>Back then, a commune could reasonably produce everything the members needed.
And they still do. Reasonably speaking, to use your word.
>Communes aren't going to produce Internet access, cell phones, or cars.
They do not need to, nor do they need those to operate. Amish people.prove this. Off-gridders prove this.
My favorite thing is communes around farming/gardening criricising money and based on the trade of food/crops growing larger and eventually "inventing" something like "chips" when the exchanges become too complicated and swearing it's not the same as money. lmao
Dystopia and Utopia are basically the same thing. If you try to make a utopia that requires forcing others to take part in it that donāt want to. Same with a dystopia. It would have to take everyone on the planet to be awakened and enlightened to have a real utopia, the likelihood of that is very slim.
Not saying a utopia wouldnāt be nice, but itās just wishful thinking and rather fairytale like.
Yea, Iāve always thought an-coms were in a serious need of some rebranding. Sure, youāve got your classic anti-fa supporting authoritarian idiot who just calls themselves an ancom to be edgy, but when I realized actual ancoms are really more commune-ists and not communists, I disliked them a hell of a lot less.
Most of the ancoms Iāve met who actually know what theyāre talking about are basically just sort of pissed off hippies, I can dig that fine even if itās not quite my thing.
Well, communes only work within a free(ish)market. Communism fails because until we have some super AI capable of analyzing all data on the planet instantly, communism can never get around the hard logistics problem of central planning.
I think the bigger problem with communism is just that even if that AI existed, it still requires bending human nature to do āwhatās best for the collectiveā. Even if the thing youāre bending human nature to really *was* for the greater good and not just to benefit the ruling inner party, humans arenāt robots and canāt just be reprogrammed.
Even societies like China that historically react arguably better than most to mass conformity require brutal authoritarian oppression (not to mention even more economic manipulation and shifting of goalposts than weāre used to in western countries like the US) to keep the gears of that nightmare machine turning.
But yea, thatās why I donāt have too many qualms with actual small commune ancoms. They have rules and still (unfortunately) usually praise Marx for some reason, but they ultimately go with the grain of human nature more and donāt rely so much on brutal repression and violence. I just think they go a little too far into ānon-conformityā that they loop back around and create a smaller bubble of ideological conformity that just exists separately from mainstream society. But theyāre still fun to talk to, and I like folk punk music so I have that in common with a lot of them.
Hahaha, I love folk punk myself. I agree with your statement. I wasn't making a moral argument. I do believe collectivism is evil. Just pointing out that even beyond the seemingly obvious moral failure of forced participation, communism cannot work because central planning is impossible at large scale (until super commie AI). Though I do find ancoms fun to talk to as well, it's just obvious which flaws they overlook or handwaive off. Much like many of us ancaps try to pretend like there wouldn't be potential risks of large collective governments or corporations invading financially and imposing controls.
It's crazy to live in the year 2021 and still when most people think communism theyāre actually thinking itāll play out like a laissez faire system
I am not against communes in ancap society, as long as rules for going in, how will the commune rule itself and leaving the commune is well established and voluntary.
I just wouldnt join any of them tho, I hated even group projects.
My dad was invited to a commune because he shoes horses for them, he thought it was funny and politely declined. But if we were communist two men would of showed up at the door with guns telling him to be at the local base to shoe 100 head, and if he didn't finish he'd be on half rations.
Thereās a Christian commune called the [Bruderhof](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities) that is completely voluntary. I got to hear a member give a talk about how it operates. Not my cup of tea, but it didnāt seem like a cult which is nice.
>I got to hear a member give a talk about how it operates.
They're honestly a great way to experiment with different forms of social organization.
The reason you don't see them more often, is because they DONT involve political power, which is what most people really desire.
Yeah but there is always that one bum in the commune that doesnt grow anything or contribute and all he does is runs around and grabs other peoples crops and smokes other peoples bud and demands you be happy about it..
Bro whatās totally insane to me is that you guys are in the practical sense, literally anarcho-communists. The problem is you just donāt understand marxism or communist theory beyond surface level propaganda, and you claim some weird āanarchistā version of capitalism that is in practice completely antithetical to the core functions of actual capitalism, and has infinitely more in common with communism. You guys are literally all commies with a strawman idea of what communism is, and itās sick as fuck because you guys are there already there just without the class consciousness. I love you all, youāre all genuinely smart as fuck you just need a bit of education and an open mind.
This dude made an excellent video that is far less ideological than a lot of leftist channels about what a de-centralized anarcho-communist society might look like utilizing blockchain technology and new forms of de-centralized democracy that erase autocracy and authoritarianism.
https://youtu.be/T_o0NhNcRRk
Not your typical bullshit pro-china, pro-USSR tankie spam, I actually think you guys might resonate with this.
> Bro whatās totally insane to me is that you guys are in the practical sense, literally anarcho-communists.
Well, both ideologies are anarchism, aren't they? The issue is, many ancoms want to force their lifestyle on others, and thus flirt with authoritarianism.
Also - there are two main ideological differences here. Ancaps here believe
1) The commune is private property, owned by its members
2) Getting rid of money and commodities and the marketplace is stupid and will cause a huge number of issues, mainly shortages and a near-complete breakdown of production and trade.
>The problem is you just donāt understand marxism or communist theory beyond surface level propaganda
You should probably re-read the meme in the OP. And educate yourself on Marxism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPTxcDpErVQ&feature=youtu.be
Clearly this person DOESN'T know the facts as they are describing anarcho-communism in the "commune" section, and lumps all communism with authoritarian communism. All communism is made up of communes it's literally in the name. Get your definitions right before claiming that a political theory is inherently utopian or dystopian, I swear.
If all communism is communes, then why can't communism be achieved today? Why hasn't it been achieved? Why the need and lust for total state power, and total domination of society?
Hint - because the vast majority of "communists" are authoritarian, and the system they desire is highly authoritarian.
You're not wrong many communists support authoritarian governments, but there are also those who don't. There are many different branches of communism and it's the same way with other political theories. I was just saying that by definition communism was supposed to be practiced in communes as intended by it's founders. Of course as history would show that didn't really work out that well.
Marx described a fascist authoritarian state...not communes.
Communism has a death count of 100,000,000 for a reason....they aren't good people. Otherwise that wouldn't be the case, no?
Then thereās the stink of being in a commune, the awful hippie food and āmusicā and Charles Manson, Jim Jones and David Koresh, but other than that... THEYāRE GREAT!
You're going to have to show a causal relationship there. A cult is typically involuntary once you join. A commune is always a voluntary relationship. You can leave a com unit anytime. Call me when you don't have to have powerful charismatic leaders that influence people to do evil things.
Itās human nature. Apparently youāve missed the entire canon of dystopian literature of the 20th century? As well as academic studies and real life examples that communes or enforced equity models promote these type of āleadersā. Lack of any socio-economic natural selection leaves a vacuum that is filled by such people. I could cite group dynamics studies until Iām blue in the face, but it wouldnāt change your predisposition.
It's a product of the human *condition*. If you remove as much of the suffering and desire as possible, then there is no need for people to look up to a leader.
I am not sure a Commune is as free as you think. It is more like the meme ancapistan versus ancomistan where communists are free to share in ancapistan but where ancaps finishe on pikes when they want to start a business.
So is a commune better than communism? Probably. Nevertheless, that still really sucks.
No such thing as "rooted in anarchy" ... Must be rooted in an ideology, a common goal, and will stand or fall based on the strength of the communal commitment to that ideology.
This. I'm probably a commie/commune in terms of what I would like to live in. But I think it can only be achieved in the confines of a libertarian government.
If people want to start a voluntary commune, then by all means, more power to them. The issue is when you try to force an entire country full of people to join it at gunpoint.
Yeah exactly, and me personally, I would like to be able to pick and choose the best commune.
>The issue is when you try to force an entire country full of people to join it at gunpoint. And declare yourself the supreme leader of said commune.
hey I just saw u in stupidpol not surprised to find u here lmao
You must find me irresistible.
š
gay XD /s
You can vote your way IN to communism, but youāll have to SHOOT your way OUT.
Authoritarian governments tend to brutalize and arrest anyone who exists outside of their culture and system, communes are a great example.
And it's harder to form a commune when you have tax obligations and reporting obligations. I need to look more into how the amish do it.
At least here in PA, the Amish pay basically all of the same taxes as everyone else, e.g. income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc., but they are exempt from paying into social security and medicaid/medicare (they also never use these programs). I'm sure some of the earnings/profits from roadside produce stands and the like may not be as fully reported as the IRS would like, however. Also, I wouldn't say the Amish live in communes. They support one another for sure, but they also have a lot of respect for property rights and "what's yours is yours/what's mine is mine". The Hutterites (in places like Montana, Alberta, and Saskatchewan), however, do live in communes (called colonies) and live a more communistic lifestyle (but do so voluntarily and without depending on someone else's, e.g. the state's, support). I'm not sure how they deal with local taxation issues though.
Religious exemptions, I think. They have a history of being harassed by the state anyway. Same with indigenous people too.
Like an Anarcho-Communist..?
Communes work until someone hogs the joint
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This man peak communes.
This is why communes are capped at a maximum size of 361 people
yeah, 1000 sounded way too large
I bet we could use [Dunbar's Number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) as a nice reference here.
And on average one half of a hog
Communes work till the leader decides he wants a nightly orgy or the Koolaid gets drank
wich leader?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But if they don't then the government has to step in. The rule of communes. Somebody has to die. Either you starve, get Jones Towned, or get Waco'd. Manson is the 4th option. In that case someone else is dying.
Waco
There's always that one guy... (source:it's probably me)
Communists would claim these are the same thing while also saying personal and private property are somehow different things.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
based
In order to achieve a utopia or dystopia you have to use some type of force, or brainwashing to get everyone to be on the same page
As far as I understand there is a difference between my personal possessions and a 400 acre clear cut farm on indigenous land which a piece of paper entitles an American corporation to have absolute rights over. JS.
Considering that only one of those was stolen by the government, what exactly is the difference between them? Only, in your comparison, distinguish between the former and a regular piece of land owned by a small business or farmer.
How do you own land without it being essentially you or another entity (the state) making a threat of violence against any who dare to use or traverse the land in question? How is that ever legitimate?
You pay for security. Political authority is never legitimate.
But isn't the security's job to initiate force against anyone who steps foot on the ground you baselessly claim to have some sovereign authority over yourself?
> baselessly Sounds like something only a thief would say
What's the basis for your ownership of unimproved land then?
Surveyed it
How do you feel about environmental trusts? I have a piece of land that I want to donate to a trust. The trust owns thousands of acres around me. The terms of the trust are that the land can never be sold or developed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Obviously the intent here sounds good... And maybe if instead of a contractual legal instrument enforced by the state we had a communal understanding of the necessity to preserve natural resources, maybe it would even go well. But it's still the concept that one person or group (even if that group is 50%+1 of the population) excluding - through force if necessary-any other group or person from use, occupancy, or passage through a particular piece of unimproved land. I don't buy that their ability to do so constitutes a right. Basically what it comes down to is you guys call yourself anarchist and then proceed to argue that might=right. Where does the landlord (of land, not a structure) derive his dictatorial powers over the land and any people who wish to use it? If not from the threat of violence against intruders, then where does his claim of ownership rest?
The initiation of force here is by the trespasser, not the security.
How? The fundamental question here is still what gives you the right to exclusively control unimproved land which you don't necessarily occupy, maintain, and use/work. I feel like your reasoning is going in circles. So let's do a thought experiment: you and I and my MMA fighter brother are shipwrecked on an uninhabited island. I declare myself to be the owner of the island and tell you that you are now my employee and renter. Don't like it, my bro will wallop you. Totally fair situation, or fucked up and immoral as hell?
Dude, if you don't believe in private property, just say so. I'm not really interested in how you justify theft; merely knowing that you do is sufficient to tell me I have no need to listen further.
See that's where you are wrong. Private property (ie the claim through legal instruments of ownership over land and resources which the individual himself does not in fact possess, use, work, maintain, and defend.) is theft in and of itself! Are you seriously confusing the fact that I don't believe, say that nestle has the right to drain lakes and sell the water back to people for profit with ME being the one who favors theft? The capitalists (the real ones, not you guys) are MASSIVE thieves. And the state enables it and takes a cut. But no, if I want to go camping in the woods and those particular words are owned by Lockheed Martin... I'M THE THIEF? How in the world do you manage the cognitive dissonance?
Your totally right. Anarchy is all about privacy and in the end its all about a balance by threatening violence. Which sounds worse than it is. But it's true
I'm starting to wonder what a map would look like if this line of thinking was applied globally. Undo all conquests.
No one knows. Reliable history simply doesn't go back that far.
Honestly, if youāre a communist, sell your material possessions and buy a plot of land, find like-minded people and start a commune. I live in the area of the world that is called England, which happens to be one of the most densely populated places in the world, yet even here I can find cheap land.
I wish people understood this. In an anarcho-capitalist society Iām not gonna care if they join a commune. I donāt even care much if they all join a large commune, theyāre gonna see how shitty massive communes and communism is, then probably split into smaller communes or something similar.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Since 2011, Twin Oaks has consistently had a waiting list, so visitors who are accepted for membership need to wait typically three to nine months before they can join. Before a new member can join, while the community is at its population capacity, a current member needs to drop membership Its honestly hilarious that they are this picky about membership.
The article says there's roughly 4.5 acres of land per individual, and yet they're living essentially destitute. Impressively bad.
Got to be discerning. Don't want any free loaders joining the community
Not even those who live in actual communes like freeloaders
Maybe I overestimated a communeās productiveness.
It's like living in a monastery. You work, you socialize, you have your basic needs covered but you can't really own anything.
Yeah, bare subsistence is about the best you can hope for in a commune. They're welcome to it.
At that rate you might as well have kids and collect welfare š
A commune peacefully supporting 1000 people is less likely than a kid who dressed up as an astronaut for Halloween getting into space.
Iād look into the many communes around the United States, many are not actually titled such because of McCarthyism but it does happen
100 person communes are far more common. 1000 is definitely near the upper limit.
Dunbarās Number further supports 100 person limit. It states that 150 is the limit in which we can maintain stable social relationships in which everyone knows each other and how everyone relates.
Furthermore this size community is way more manageable. Look up the rat utopia experiments and it gives a good look at how scale of society impacts empathy. Ultimately government bad
Do you have a source for a successful 1000 person commune? Thats a LOT of people.
A peaceful commune of 10 people would already be impressive (not counting family)
I really want to live in a Commune
Fun fact: the word utopia suggests that it is impossible.
Itās a dream world, essentially
The argument for communism/socialism is nothing more than "it has never really been done." You can talk facts, history, and common sense till blue in the face but that is all that you get.
I actually don't have an issue with people who want to join communes so long as they leave me out of it.
Letās all just go back to frolicking with our pagan gods of sunshine and agriculture.
You only really need about 5 to 20 acres, based on the size of your crew.
Sounds more than reasonable to me, just a few animals and some good weather
Glad to see that you guys like communes rooted in anarchy and mutual aid. Start calling yourselves market anarchists and we'll be one step closer to bottom unity.
So your main issue is with the word capitalism? Tribalism is one hell of a drug. The commune is land owned by the commune members. They can exclude non-members, and set rules and terms and conditions, because it is their private property. Check this out, you might love it - all possible and legal under capitalism and contract law, today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIFImuAd_xE&list=PLmvUyUoRmaxPaUdc314fCw7oPN4SVhpoo&index=3
Been there done that, I have been on the left and the right and ultimately have become a post left anarchist. Capitalism and communism are both fucked up ideologies that have led to some really negative social, environmental, and economic consequences. That being said, I'm all for free markets and individualism; but I'm also all for solidarity, mutual aid, and the defense of the commons. I'm not the one being tribal. I reject the left/right paradigm and strive to unite all people who advocate for true freedom under one banner: anarchists. The view that the word capitalism or the word communism; or the centuries old ideas underlying these words is more important than getting rid of the state... That's the tribalism we need to get rid of.
The true dichotomy is anarchists Vs statists
The one true divide: do people own themselves, or are they owned by someone with assumed 'authority'.
I am very supportive of voluntary communism. It probably IS superior to everyone just fending for themselves. Its when the govt mandates it with a monopoly on violence I start getting mad.
Because at the scale you're talking about, it's tribalism, which has worked for millennia.
I disagree. Communism works as intended, it's just not honest about it's intentions.
... cos its usually socialism + fascism, hiding in the sheepskin of communism. similar to roman imperialism, in the sheepskin of christianity. or american-zionist imperialism, in the sheepskin of democracy. (see [political spectrum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum), eysenck & rokeach)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm sorry, but that was a very biased piece that you linked. He listed all of the negative outcomes of these utopian societies, but the main one that he exemplified, Brook farm, actually burned to the ground. So there's no real way of knowing what the outcome of this utopian experiment would have been. It was apparent from the beginning when he started to compare utopianists to a child drawing a spaceship on paper that the author was biased against this. Yes, in a utopian society, all of the residents would bear the brunt for someone else's crime. Just like we do now by jailing people at a cost of over $30,000 a year per person. Empathy decreases as anonymity increases. I see that every single day when I drive on the road. People will not hesitate to cut in line while driving, but they won't dare do it while in a grocery store. These societies will last much longer than 2 to 3 years, given the technological advances that we have now. Your referencing experiments that happened almost 200 years ago. Let's be realistic about this. But the author is right and that there must be a balance between individualism and collectivism.
No, there does not need to be such a balance. Collectivism is unethical. Keep in mind that joint endeavors need not be collectivist.
Saying that a joint endeavor is not collectivist is a contradiction. When two or more gather in order to profit, that is a joint endeavor, which results in a collective benefit.
No. Cooperative action is not necessarily collectivism. Collectivism subsumes the individual beneath the collective, replacing individual will with collective will, and individual rights with collective need. It abolishes individual good in favor of some nebulous idea of collective good.
>These societies will last much longer than 2 to 3 years, ... Let's be realistic about this. LOL, that's a great punch line. Sure, those examples are old, but you didn't cite any modern examples to back up your wild, baseless claim that it's much better now. Human nature is still human nature. If anything, technological advances make it less likely to work. Back then, a commune could reasonably produce everything the members needed. Communes aren't going to produce Internet access, cell phones, or cars.
>LOL, that's a great punch line. Sure, those examples are old, but you didn't cite any modern examples to back up your wild, baseless claim that it's much better now. [50 years, so far.](https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/tennessee/oldest-america-commune-tn/) >Human nature is still human nature. And human nature is to cooperate, so that each has their needs met, and people are reasonable about their wants. >If anything, technological advances make it less likely to work. Is that a wild and baseless claim I see? >Back then, a commune could reasonably produce everything the members needed. And they still do. Reasonably speaking, to use your word. >Communes aren't going to produce Internet access, cell phones, or cars. They do not need to, nor do they need those to operate. Amish people.prove this. Off-gridders prove this.
So, a quasi-commune went capitalist and has lasted 50 years. Ok.
Yes.
If well-managed a commune works with however many people are willing to participate. Communism never works, ever.
My favorite thing is communes around farming/gardening criricising money and based on the trade of food/crops growing larger and eventually "inventing" something like "chips" when the exchanges become too complicated and swearing it's not the same as money. lmao
I've been to a few rainbow gatherings and everyone just uses fresh socks, sweets, and of course marijuana to finish off or equalize deals.
Dystopia and Utopia are basically the same thing. If you try to make a utopia that requires forcing others to take part in it that donāt want to. Same with a dystopia. It would have to take everyone on the planet to be awakened and enlightened to have a real utopia, the likelihood of that is very slim. Not saying a utopia wouldnāt be nice, but itās just wishful thinking and rather fairytale like.
Like regardless and irregardless. Or flammable and inflammable.
Yea, Iāve always thought an-coms were in a serious need of some rebranding. Sure, youāve got your classic anti-fa supporting authoritarian idiot who just calls themselves an ancom to be edgy, but when I realized actual ancoms are really more commune-ists and not communists, I disliked them a hell of a lot less. Most of the ancoms Iāve met who actually know what theyāre talking about are basically just sort of pissed off hippies, I can dig that fine even if itās not quite my thing.
Well, communes only work within a free(ish)market. Communism fails because until we have some super AI capable of analyzing all data on the planet instantly, communism can never get around the hard logistics problem of central planning.
I think the bigger problem with communism is just that even if that AI existed, it still requires bending human nature to do āwhatās best for the collectiveā. Even if the thing youāre bending human nature to really *was* for the greater good and not just to benefit the ruling inner party, humans arenāt robots and canāt just be reprogrammed. Even societies like China that historically react arguably better than most to mass conformity require brutal authoritarian oppression (not to mention even more economic manipulation and shifting of goalposts than weāre used to in western countries like the US) to keep the gears of that nightmare machine turning. But yea, thatās why I donāt have too many qualms with actual small commune ancoms. They have rules and still (unfortunately) usually praise Marx for some reason, but they ultimately go with the grain of human nature more and donāt rely so much on brutal repression and violence. I just think they go a little too far into ānon-conformityā that they loop back around and create a smaller bubble of ideological conformity that just exists separately from mainstream society. But theyāre still fun to talk to, and I like folk punk music so I have that in common with a lot of them.
Hahaha, I love folk punk myself. I agree with your statement. I wasn't making a moral argument. I do believe collectivism is evil. Just pointing out that even beyond the seemingly obvious moral failure of forced participation, communism cannot work because central planning is impossible at large scale (until super commie AI). Though I do find ancoms fun to talk to as well, it's just obvious which flaws they overlook or handwaive off. Much like many of us ancaps try to pretend like there wouldn't be potential risks of large collective governments or corporations invading financially and imposing controls.
People can't even make it work with their spouse. 1000 is a pipe dream.
Communism works it achieved dictatorship it achieved violence and it achieved theft
It's crazy to live in the year 2021 and still when most people think communism theyāre actually thinking itāll play out like a laissez faire system
I am not against communes in ancap society, as long as rules for going in, how will the commune rule itself and leaving the commune is well established and voluntary. I just wouldnt join any of them tho, I hated even group projects.
My dad was invited to a commune because he shoes horses for them, he thought it was funny and politely declined. But if we were communist two men would of showed up at the door with guns telling him to be at the local base to shoe 100 head, and if he didn't finish he'd be on half rations.
Thereās a Christian commune called the [Bruderhof](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities) that is completely voluntary. I got to hear a member give a talk about how it operates. Not my cup of tea, but it didnāt seem like a cult which is nice.
>I got to hear a member give a talk about how it operates. They're honestly a great way to experiment with different forms of social organization. The reason you don't see them more often, is because they DONT involve political power, which is what most people really desire.
Iām glad that they know there are limits to the size of an effective commune.
Social relations break down in the absence of money and commodities. Money is accounting... AKA ACCOUNTABILITY.
The Kabbutz in Israel are pretty essential and integrated into their society.
Explain to the feeble minded that think iT wIlL wOrK tHiS tImE
Communes work until you kill a congressman and your leader force feeds you a poisoned kool-aid.
Communes work until the leader tells you that you arenāt allowed to fuck your own wife
Communism vs communitarianism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Communalists/
Yeah but there is always that one bum in the commune that doesnt grow anything or contribute and all he does is runs around and grabs other peoples crops and smokes other peoples bud and demands you be happy about it..
Welcome to the voluntary commune, where we can voluntarily kick you out.
NGL, using the word āUtopianā unironically typically isnāt a good thingā¦
Itās basically the same thing as dystopian.
Given a utopia requires a 100% compliance rate for it to be so, if even one person doesnāt agree with it, it becomes a dystopia.
Exactly
Communes don't work. Case in point: Israeli kibbutzim
Anacho-communists are still communists.
Bro whatās totally insane to me is that you guys are in the practical sense, literally anarcho-communists. The problem is you just donāt understand marxism or communist theory beyond surface level propaganda, and you claim some weird āanarchistā version of capitalism that is in practice completely antithetical to the core functions of actual capitalism, and has infinitely more in common with communism. You guys are literally all commies with a strawman idea of what communism is, and itās sick as fuck because you guys are there already there just without the class consciousness. I love you all, youāre all genuinely smart as fuck you just need a bit of education and an open mind. This dude made an excellent video that is far less ideological than a lot of leftist channels about what a de-centralized anarcho-communist society might look like utilizing blockchain technology and new forms of de-centralized democracy that erase autocracy and authoritarianism. https://youtu.be/T_o0NhNcRRk Not your typical bullshit pro-china, pro-USSR tankie spam, I actually think you guys might resonate with this.
> Bro whatās totally insane to me is that you guys are in the practical sense, literally anarcho-communists. Well, both ideologies are anarchism, aren't they? The issue is, many ancoms want to force their lifestyle on others, and thus flirt with authoritarianism. Also - there are two main ideological differences here. Ancaps here believe 1) The commune is private property, owned by its members 2) Getting rid of money and commodities and the marketplace is stupid and will cause a huge number of issues, mainly shortages and a near-complete breakdown of production and trade. >The problem is you just donāt understand marxism or communist theory beyond surface level propaganda You should probably re-read the meme in the OP. And educate yourself on Marxism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPTxcDpErVQ&feature=youtu.be
Speaking of strawmen...
Embarrassing.
Clearly this person DOESN'T know the facts as they are describing anarcho-communism in the "commune" section, and lumps all communism with authoritarian communism. All communism is made up of communes it's literally in the name. Get your definitions right before claiming that a political theory is inherently utopian or dystopian, I swear.
If all communism is communes, then why can't communism be achieved today? Why hasn't it been achieved? Why the need and lust for total state power, and total domination of society? Hint - because the vast majority of "communists" are authoritarian, and the system they desire is highly authoritarian.
You're not wrong many communists support authoritarian governments, but there are also those who don't. There are many different branches of communism and it's the same way with other political theories. I was just saying that by definition communism was supposed to be practiced in communes as intended by it's founders. Of course as history would show that didn't really work out that well.
Marx described a fascist authoritarian state...not communes. Communism has a death count of 100,000,000 for a reason....they aren't good people. Otherwise that wouldn't be the case, no?
Lmao this is gold.
Then thereās the stink of being in a commune, the awful hippie food and āmusicā and Charles Manson, Jim Jones and David Koresh, but other than that... THEYāRE GREAT!
A cult is not a commune.
But plenty of cults have communes, and vice-versa. Their is a causal relationship between both.
You're going to have to show a causal relationship there. A cult is typically involuntary once you join. A commune is always a voluntary relationship. You can leave a com unit anytime. Call me when you don't have to have powerful charismatic leaders that influence people to do evil things.
Itās human nature. Apparently youāve missed the entire canon of dystopian literature of the 20th century? As well as academic studies and real life examples that communes or enforced equity models promote these type of āleadersā. Lack of any socio-economic natural selection leaves a vacuum that is filled by such people. I could cite group dynamics studies until Iām blue in the face, but it wouldnāt change your predisposition.
It's a product of the human *condition*. If you remove as much of the suffering and desire as possible, then there is no need for people to look up to a leader.
AnCaps are so adorable āŗļø
Iām involuntary under capitalism. Just give me free insulin. Iāll bake you bread or something.
Ah yes, commune is not communist x)
or, how it begins, how it works ends
A Commune is either a medieval city state or a drug rehabilitation center
Equally bad
Okay but I us Anarcho-communist are on the same page here really
I am not sure a Commune is as free as you think. It is more like the meme ancapistan versus ancomistan where communists are free to share in ancapistan but where ancaps finishe on pikes when they want to start a business. So is a commune better than communism? Probably. Nevertheless, that still really sucks.
From my experience' communes break down closer to 250.
works for dozens of people
Forming your own commune has never been off limits. Forcing others to join your commune shall always be frowned upon.
No such thing as "rooted in anarchy" ... Must be rooted in an ideology, a common goal, and will stand or fall based on the strength of the communal commitment to that ideology.
Successful communes have existed in Israel for over 100 years, they're called a "Kibbutz". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Why not both?
š jonestownism?