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?

  • SadArtemis🏳️‍⚧️@lemmygrad.ml
    2·
    2 months ago

    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.