I know this question will sound silly to some, but suppose a group of people in a low key third world country decide to make their own commune. They work together to build up farming and industry purely based on their own need, and slowly expand to accomodate their needs.
I understand Communes are viewed as ineffective, but a commune like this would be meant to grow, not just remain isolated. It would inspire communes in other areas, and it would aim to expand.
I see a couple of issues with this:
- not all countries can do this. For example, Palestinians living in Palestine will suffer trying to do this. But most countries can, right?
- it will only benefit the tiny group of people within proximity to the commune. But the commune can 1) expand and 2) inspire communes in other locations
- some needs are hard for a small commune to make, such as computer chip manufacturing, and other things they will need to get from the non commune world
But still, I can't see this as less than a good step forward?
I see it as a step towards more communes however there's no political change there at any level of government.
A "low key third world country" has to industrialize in some way to add value to their production and to get benefits of scale. Are these communes going to be able to compete with private industry who probably have access to greater funding and government protection?
It could be a stepping stone for better political change. You have to start somewhere, and right now the state is way too powerful. If a revolution does start, the commune can act as a safety net for revolutionaries, and possibly supply the revolutionaries with what they need.
I agree that it has to industrialize. Does it have to compete with private industry from the get-go? The commune's goal in the beginning is to build up its ability to satisfy the needs of its members, and the industry will build up slowly. No need to compete with private industry.
I think there IS a need to compete. You have to produce more than just subsistence. Without any goods to trade, this hypothetical third world commune will have very little economic growth.
Hence the need to be competitive with other producers in the marketplace (which could be private industry). If private industry can produce the same goods far cheaper than the commune then it's tough for that commune to make money. No/low income means there can be very little industrial build up with no funding to invest in more infrastructure, equipment or resources.
This is why I mentioned political power. Government can support that industrialization process. e.g. directly providing funds, building infrastructure, creating laws that bring foreign capital. etc.
Why is trade necessary? Is it because the commune would not be able to produce everything it needs and wants? What if it can cover all needs and good enough portion of the wants?
Why is trade necessary? Is it because the commune would not be able to produce everything it needs and wants?
Correct. It's wants would exceed what it can produce. It can trade the excess of what it produces for other goods and services.
What if it can cover all needs and good enough portion of the wants?
Self sufficiency is difficult at a commune level. Just access to healthcare is a need.
We can see this already in real world. Don't even worry about the commune aspect. A less developed country has lower access to healthcare, education, etc. To develop they have to have something valuable to trade.
I'm not an expert in communes, nor the type of associations one would have with that. But I think an important question grounded in analysis would be to ask yourself why it is that communes have come and failed in America or elsewhere and why certain ones lasted so long.
Most importantly; how would having a communist ideology prevent that collapse that seems inevitable for these insular projects?
From my extremely limited familiarity with the communes I've read about, including in the Americas, it seems like their goal is just an escape plan that has no aspiration for overthrowing global capitalism or growth. What I'm speaking about is the opposite. It is not meant to be insular. The commune's goal would be to grow, inspire other communes, and organize them together.
If and when the armed struggle initiates, it'll be in a much better position with the existence of communes that could be the manufacturing arm of the revolution.
Why shouldn't it compete with private industry (and in doing so, promote its own ideal of locally-owned, communally-organized industry)? Why, especially in developing (ie. colonized) countries, should the focus be on a limited commune's development rather than promoting industrial and economic development in the broader region within a healthier framework than that of private capital?
Why shouldn't it compete with private industry
The goal is to produce what the members of the commune need. If that can be produced locally, I don't see a need to compete.
Why, especially in developing (ie. colonized) countries, should the focus be on a limited commune's development rather than promoting industrial and economic development in the broader region
If I understood you correctly (sorry English isn't my native), you're asking why only serve the limited number of members of the commune, and not other people in the same region not part of the commune.
If so, the commune would have a goal to expand. It would promote people to join it, participate, and then it can cover the needs of more and more. Growth is part of the plan.
The goal is to produce what the members of the commune need. If that can be produced locally, I don’t see a need to compete.
There's no need to step on local industries' toes (without good reason), sure. But if it is not produced locally, or if what production exists locally is not locally-owned, I don't see why competition should only be fair game, but beneficial (for the broader society and the collective/commune itself).
you’re asking why only serve the limited number of members of the commune, and not other people in the same region not part of the commune.
And as for this, that's what I was asking, yes. And if the commune remains solely a commune and confined to that framework, it could expand, sure, but wouldn't it only ever remain an insular, "petri dish" of a social experiment? Its expansion would be arbitrarily restrained, and it would not be promoting systemic change (or acquiring the means to promote such change), and it would not likely have the means to benefit the broader society (which it would be more or less built away and in relative isolation from).
It would not be a bad thing, to create such a commune all the same. But such a commune would not exactly be a "starting point" as described in the title here- at least, it would not be a "starting point" for anything other than the creation of more communes, which so long as they retained the same structural limitations, would have little impact outside of their small circles, and would be vulnerable to the broader capitalist society's possible predations (should they get large and developed enough as you describe) due to lacking political power.
There's a commune like this in Denmark, very historical, called Christiania. Due to some legal loophole the grounds of an old barracks in the center of Copenhagen were not under the jurisdiction of any government and so people started moving in and occupying the grounds. In their first years they drove out the LGBT community from the grounds, and then were plagued with gang violence for the next 30 years. Their economy relied entirely on selling weed to clueless tourists. Also lots of "no photo" signs everywhere.
Starting in 2012 Christiania started buying up the property because of gang violence, and part of the deal to do that was that they had to build low-income housing. This also put an end to the effective commune, as it is now administered by a foundation that exists under Danish law. Though they've been relying on city services such as water, electricity and waste management since 1994.
You'll probably have better luck regarding history and theory of communes on hexbear's anarchism communities.
There have been many attempts at something like networks of self-organised communes, even before Marxism and Anarchism were coined.
In colonial Brazil, self-sustaining and self-governed communities called Quilombos were created as an alternative to the Atlantic trade slave-society imposed by the Europeans. As far as I've read they often organised themselves in federations with regards to war but were self-contained with regards to their own economy. Not sure what's a good English source, but Clovis Moura is the best Portuguese one.
Over time, with the consolidation of colonial (and eventually Brazilian) authority, the settlements were either wiped out or relegated to the margins of society. The few that remain today are constantly under judicial and criminal attack.
Other two more recent examples of federated autonomous communities would be the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities in Mexico, which recently got dissolved and the Shining Path (and following splinter groups) occupation of Peruvian territories.
Do note that all of the provided examples had to deal with the constant threat of organised violence, be it from the state or from organised crime.
Going back to Brazil, two other examples of communes would be some of the communities defended by the Landless's Workers Movements (which is less militant and more legalist) or the armed League of Poor Peasants (which, surprise surprise, was created as a reaction to brutal state suppression).
Given all that, I don't believe communes can be seen as "safer" or "more peaceful" ways of building towards socialism or fighting imperialism. They have a role to play (even under capitalism) and are objectively good in many cases, but they're still going to be in the crosshairs of imperialism.
Wherever alternatives to imperialism (and therefore capitalism) present themselves, they must be brutally destroyed and made an example of. This is probably paraphrasing a few dozen Marxists and also a couple Secretaries of State.
In all its bloody triumphs over the self-sacrificing champions of a new and better society, that nefarious civilization, based upon the enslavement of labor, drowns the moans of its victims in a hue-and-cry of calumny, reverberated by a world-wide echo. The serene working men’s Paris of the Commune is suddenly changed into a pandemonium by the bloodhounds of “order.”
And what does this tremendous change prove to the bourgeois mind of all countries? Why, that the Commune has conspired against civilization! The Paris people die enthusiastically for the Commune in numbers unequally in any battle known to history. What does that prove? Why, that the Commune was not the people’s own government but the usurpation of a handful of criminals! The women of Paris joyfully give up their lives at the barricades and on the place of execution. What does this prove? Why, that the demon of the Commune has changed them into Megaera and Hecates!
IMO the answer to this question is organize locally. Feel free to offer this idea to your local organization and be ready to follow democratic centralism whether they elect to try your idea or not.
It may be an appropriate action in your local community or it may not.
The events of Lebanon makes way less optimistic about the armed struggle. Hezbollah is the most powerful non-state actor, but it took a massive blow from Israel in such a short time. Israel can watch them 24/7 from satellites, can compromise their supply chain, and can even compromise their communication. Their technical and logistical superiority is so great, it is difficult to imagine beating them.
Personally I don't quite get it- if a group of people were to head to a developing country, purchase land and invest in it, and bring and develop their own talents- why would they then limit themselves to an insular commune model?
The majority of countries, developing countries included, are also capitalist. You will still need to exist within these socioeconomic frameworks, and come to an understanding with the local governance (which may or may not come with its own serious difficulties). Small, negligible communes in remote, neglible regions can probably(?) get by, but past a certain point (and especially with expansion and the kinds of political and industrial development you seem to be describing) a more concrete arrangement and place within the local economy, etc. would be more ideal (and probably necessary for survival/viability) IMO.
Capitalism (and particularly its highest form, imperialism) is the devil, yes. Yada yada (though I do think it is so)... But people will generally work in their own self-interest (and for projects past a certain scale it should be banking on that fact)- not necessarily "selfish/sociopathic interest" like the west likes to promote, but an insular, limited commune only has so much appeal, and so much sway in the world. Within the current global system, and the systems as they exist in most developing countries, I don't quite understand why things should be limited to a commune alone, when those with such resources to start such a thing could also genuinely create the foundations for something even more broadly-reaching and potentially, politically/etc. potent. And I don't understand either why the production should be limited to simply self-sufficiency rather than taking advantage of the typical advantages developing countries have in the global market (cheap production costs, etc) to pursue a trade surplus with the wider world and promote the development of the region (ideally while promoting/creating a strong foundation for labor organization and co-operative ownership, etc- hell if I know).
This is all just coming off the top of my head, so it's not necessarily the most coherent or well thought out of concepts. But if a group with such resources were to head to a developing "third world" country- why create some commune of "splendid self-sufficient isolation?" Why not try to create a mini-China? It could start off as a commune (and it might very well be easiest to start off as such- akin to how China developed its own """ghost cities""" as the west liked to mock) for many reasons, but I don't see why remaining a commune (retaining the commune/communal spirit and organization would be another thing) would be so ideal.
(edit) simply a quick thought- but if you were to ask me, the initial humble beginnings of a "commune" model for instance of the scale described, could just as well be directed towards creating a planned community (with the goal of expanding into a town, or eventual city). And if such a group were to have the means and skills to create such a developed commune- as described, why not create for local markets and foreign exports as well, and thus help break the broader regions' dependencies on foreign industry (or agriculture, etc)?
And why not seek to make the commune (whose organization presumably could develop/transition into a co-op or union of some kind, alongside some form of municipal govt.) indispensable (economically, technically, politically, etc) and expansive within the broader society itself?
if a group of people were to head to a developing country
Although not essential to my point, I am not encouraging people to move anywhere. This is under the assumption that the people of that specific country gather to do this, not for people to immigrate for it.
a more concrete arrangement and place within the local economy, etc. would be more ideal (and probably necessary for survival/viability) IMO.
Can you please expand this point? I don't quite understand what this "more concrete arrangement and..." is exactly, and why it's needed.
when those with such resources to start such a thing could also genuinely create the foundations for something even more broadly-reaching and potentially, politically/etc. potent.
I don't necessarily agree with this. A capitalist state is much more likely to persecute someone doing this, but much less likely a commune. And when you're just starting out, you're quite vulnerable to the state, especially the mass surveillance and hyper militarized police states of today.
pursue a trade surplus with the wider world
I just don't see why that's needed. Capitalists trade to accumulate capital, whereas a commune is interested in growing its ability to produce in a self sufficient manner.
Why not try to create a mini-China?
That's... Actually kind of what I'm getting at. And maybe you phrased it better than I could have.
but I don't see why remaining a commune
Not intended to stay that way, which is why I called it a starting point!
Admittedly these three points more or less explained your concept to me, where I was stumbling on it prior:
Why not try to create a mini-China?
That’s… Actually kind of what I’m getting at. And maybe you phrased it better than I could have.
Sounds good to me, then.
pursue a trade surplus with the wider world
I just don’t see why that’s needed. Capitalists trade to accumulate capital, whereas a commune is interested in growing its ability to produce in a self sufficient manner.
The goal of pursuing a trade surplus would be for much of the same reasons, as why China has done so. To further promote and concentrate the development of productive forces (industrial/agricultural) within the region, and to create a foundation from which local productive forces within the commune can exist long-term in the broader world, without being subsumed or made irrelevant by external capitalist production, and working towards actual political (socioeconomic) influence.
but I don’t see why remaining a commune
Not intended to stay that way, which is why I called it a starting point!
Admittedly, I still stumble on your explanations here, though it is not due to the language (your English is perfectly fine). I'm just not understanding the specifics- so, is the commune a "starting point" to inspiring other communes and an ever-expanding commune, or is it a "starting point" towards expanding beyond simply being a commune?
In hindsight, I suppose it doesn't overly matter (though for the former, at some point it does sound like trying to create a "state within a state,") or wouldn't matter overly much within the short and medium-term, anyways. Though in regards to promoting actual socialist development then, if things were to expand past a certain point, the issue would rise up again- whether to create an insular system or framework of systems despite the external government, or to develop so as to slowly acquire political power within the pre-existing government and society.
As for this-
Can you please expand this point? I don’t quite understand what this “more concrete arrangement and…” is exactly, and why it’s needed.
My point was that politically idealistic, self-sufficient communes with considerable assets (productive capabilities, land, expertise, etc) past a certain point cannot expect to be left alone, without interference from the local government and from the other forces of external capital. In fact, even tiny, negligible communes would receive at least some scrutiny now and then.
A "more concrete arrangement" would be the aforementioned things I described- expanding outwards into the broader society and world, and in doing so acquiring economic, industrial, societal influence and political power within the broader society so as to be a force in your own right, rather than a tasty snack for capitalists to devour when so inclined.
