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?

  • GreatSquare
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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?

    • maysaloonOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

      • -6-6-6-
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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?

      • GreatSquare
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        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.