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 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?

  • maysaloon@lemmygrad.mlOP
    0·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • SadArtemis🏳️‍⚧️@lemmygrad.ml
      0·
      1 month ago

      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.