[SolarCross]

I recently watched a very interesting documetary on Russia Today about a communal enterprise called Twin Oaks in the USA - link to vid here. It is long been a dream of mine to live like this but never yet done much about making it happen. So I wonder if anyone on this board lives this way and for those armchair socialists like me I wonder if you would ever want to actually do something like this in the future?

[Paradigm]

I'd love to live in an anarchist commune, but it kind of feels like that would be running away from the problem. I'm not just an anarchist because I personally want to be free. I'm an anarchist because I think capitalism, statism, patriarchy, white supremacy and other systems of domination need to be defeated. It's not enough to simply seclude myself from them while they continue to oppress others around the world.

[SolarCross]

Could not elite monopolism (in all the forms you mention) best be defeated by actually demostrating that an alternative is viable? If one doesn't pursue a better alternative then what does one do? Protest is all well and good but in the end it is a negative reaction rather than a positive one; it is just saying 'that is bad!' but not by itself showing what is good. By living the life, not in isolation but interacting and trading with the wider world too, you inspire more of those being oppressed by monopolism to do something to free themselves. The less drones serving the monopolists the less the monopolists have power to make misery. The 'elite' can't do anything without the soldiers, workers and managers who serve them and they serve the elite because they dependant on them for their living. If there is no tangible alternative for people to see and participate in they will out of necessity continue to serve the monopolist system.

[Paradigm]

Could not elite monopolism (in all the forms you mention) best be defeated by actually demostrating that an alternative is viable?

If it's out in public view, sure. That was the advantage of the Occupy movement back when they were in the parks, and it was exactly why they had to be evicted. The establishment really doesn't care about a bunch of anarchists going off to the countryside to grow their own vegetables and practice mutual aid.

[SolarCross]

Could one not do both? I think protest and actually practicing the anarcho-syndicalist/communist way are not mutually exclusive approaches.

[Someone5]

Could one not do both? I think protest and actually practicing the anarcho-syndicalist/communist way are not mutually exclusive approaches.

It's pretty much impossible to do something like that in a non-friendly city because of zoning regulations, municipal taxation, police interference, etc. The only way that works is when some group has found a legal loophole that puts jurisdiction in question, where the property isn't worth enough for anyone to particularly care about going through the trouble of getting ownership established. Not to mention that growing food in cities is generally a poor idea because of environmental issues. A society like that would need a credible source of income, not just selling tofu and hammocks.

[SolarCross]

Not sure what you mean by a non-friendly city but in the UK it is certainly possible even in a city (and the UK is a pretty hostile place to anything non-elitist.) Growing your own food is a desirable but optional part of communal life. A commune based in a city would just have to purchase its food but could use its collective purchasing power to get wholesale prices for its food which is an advantage not available to individuals.

The commune would certainly have to earn money but it doesn't have to be tofu or hammocks.

I think you are being rather too casually dismissive. Are you hostile to cooperatives on ideological grounds?

In the UK there are quite a few social entrprises, some are workers cooperatives, others are housing cooperatives others still are like Twin Oaks a combined housing and work cooperative. There are even financial organisations that specialise in financing social enterprises.

[Someone5]

Not sure what you mean by a non-friendly city but in the UK it is certainly possible even in a city (and the UK is a pretty hostile place to anything non-elitist.)

Not as hostile as you think, then. This would be entirely impractical to do in my own city in the US for example. The municipal government would find a reason to put it down, and would rezone the area if needed.

A commune based in a city would just have to purchase its food but could use its collective purchasing power to get wholesale prices for its food which is an advantage not available to individuals.

I guess, but that seems like it would bleed the collective bank account pretty harshly without some method of raising revenue... which it itself problematic for anarcho-socialism.

The commune would certainly have to earn money but it doesn't have to be tofu or hammocks.

I think such a collective would be too wholly dependent on the capitalists around it to really make much of a point.

I think you are being rather too casually dismissive. Are you hostile to cooperatives on ideological grounds?

Not even remotely. I just think that trying to do so in a city as a fixed, permanent institution is not workable as long as hostile capitalists maintain control of the area around it.

In the UK there are quite a few social entrprises, some are workers cooperatives, others are housing cooperatives others still are like Twin Oaks a combined housing and work cooperative. There are even financial organisations that specialise in financing social enterprises.

And that only works in the US in rural areas, where the local county government isn't powerful enough to do anything and doesn't care enough to try. City governments would eviscerate such a thing unless it was able to rake in piles of money that it was willing to spend to secure control of the local city government.

[SolarCross]

Ok I guess the US is a more hostile enviroment for this kind of enterprise. US elites should be careful for 'those who make peacefull revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable' (JFK). Never thought I say this but lucky me that I live in the UK or actually any european country.

Anyway I am resolved to make a it mission to find some like minded people with which to form a coop along the lines of Twin Oaks. I happen to live in a very rural county in England, agricultural land is not hard to come by, and I have heard planning permission for residential buildings connected with agriculture is relatively easy to come by.

[Someone5]

Ok I guess the US is a more hostile enviroment for this kind of enterprise. US elites should be careful for 'those who make peacefull revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable' (JFK). Never thought I say this but lucky me that I live in the UK or actually any european country.

Anyway I am resolved to make a it mission to find some like minded people with which to form a coop along the lines of Twin Oaks. I happen to live in a very rural county in England, agricultural land is not hard to come by, and I have heard planning permission for residential buildings connected with agriculture is relatively easy to come by.

Exactly. That's pretty much why these experiments end up being located in rural areas. The land is cheap enough to make it workable, and the governments are hands-off enough to let you do it.

[Happyhippo]

Ok I guess the US is a more hostile enviroment for this kind of enterprise. US elites should be careful for 'those who make peacefull revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable' (JFK). Never thought I say this but lucky me that I live in the UK or actually any european country.

Anyway I am resolved to make a it mission to find some like minded people with which to form a coop along the lines of Twin Oaks. I happen to live in a very rural county in England, agricultural land is not hard to come by, and I have heard planning permission for residential buildings connected with agriculture is relatively easy to come by.

In the town where I live, we have this place. I don`t live there, but drop by their chess club and book store several times every week. Norwegian authorities are also quite hostile to this kind of enterprise, so one of the rules made by the inhabitants of the district is to keep it low quality. This is done in order to make the authorities care less, but also have horrible side effects. Several of the political parties frequently point to Svartlamon as a filthy and malfunctioning district and use it for propaganda purposes against anarchism. It`s kind of a grid lock

[SolarCross]

Its funny but the UK seems like a pretty good place for co-ops etc. Without knowing any better one would think that the UK would be the worst place to try it; its right-wing compared to many european countries, a shameless slave to america and we still have a monarchy! But then again socialists over the centuries in this country have won some significant victories. Co-ops are a legally recognised institution just like ltds, plcs, charities etc. Some co-ops are very big and well established.

There are no hard impediments to forming a co-op; the police are not going to come in and smash the place up without a pretty good excuse. There are some soft impediments like getting the finance together for start-up capital, and general apathy and ignorance of the nature and practice of co-operative work and living. But there is some finance available (just don't go to the regular banks) and apathy and ingnorance amongst the general populace is hardly an impediment at all; you only need to find the few who have a clue to get something going.

[SolarCross]

misclick

[mikema63]

that commune of yours HH the link didnt say what type it was or was it just all of them rolled together?

[Happyhippo]

that commune of yours HH the link didnt say what type it was or was it just all of them rolled together?

It isn`t really anarchist either, the city council has too much power over the area for that to be true. I would say it`s closer to green anarchism than anything else.

Norway is not that unfriendly to far-left ideas, but the authorities are not really interested in giving away land for purposes like this, as they have a welfare state to feed.

[KlassWar]

Isolated communes are ridiculous: It's just a small-scale Saturnalia: Serfs playing at make-believe freedom.

As long as the rich control valuable resources and their government can still send its jack-booted thugs to enforce their diktat on your community, your community ain't at all free. There can be no liberty until the enemies of the working class (the rich, the conservatives, the authorities) are disposessed, expropriated and thoroughly and irreversibly destroyed.

Cooperatives are part of the way forward (they bring workers together and they instill in workers the building blocks of self-management and self-rule)... But victory will only be achieved when the last remnants of the old order are torched (and then consigned to oblivion, actual damnatio memoriae) by the victorious working masses.

[SolarCross]

KW - I agree that ultimately freedom must come from the end of monopolism. However unless the monopolists blunder spectacularly to the point where enough people are so enraged that madame guilotine comes out of retirement then monopolism will be with us for some time yet. It is pragmatic then for the anarcho-whateverist to make the best of the situation available. Forming coops and the like is best option for now and anyway should the day of the revolution ever come it will be the already existing co-ops that enable practical anarchy to come out of the revolution rather than chaos or just another monopolism as happened with previous revolutions such as the french and russian.

In the meantime wary co-existance is the best solution.

[Paradigm]

That such a sad, defeatist view I don't even know where to begin. We can practice our ideals through prefigurative politics and dual power. That's why anarchist resistance movements practice horizontalism, mutual aid, and consensus decision-making. Co-ops can be a part of this, as can free clinics, mutual aid networks, and so on. But we must do so in a way that confronts the powers that be, rather than just fleeing from them.

[KlassWar]

This is true. Worker's Cooperatives, Industry Unions, mutual aid associations and eventually, when the time is right, workers' militias will be the weapons that eventually demolish capitalism. Workers should strive to form cooperatives and help each other do so. We need to organize in worker-ruled class organizations that allow us to actually resist. Dual power is indeed the transitional stage towards worker power.

Of course it's true! It's the basics, it's the anarchist's ABC, it can be taken for granted in discussion between comrades.

What I'm criticizing is the strategy of gathering a buncha perfectly good activists and going to form an isolated commune in, say, Nowhere, ID. Instead of helping spread class consciousness among the working classes and building credible institutions of worker power! Instead of organizing the resistance, some comrades prefer to withdraw to the middle of nowhere and build an utopian agrarian commune!!! A commune that will:

A) Still have to pay taxes... Or face seizure of assets.
B) Still subject to the State's laws, and they will remain so as long as they don't have the means of resisting and thwarting the State's enforcers.
C) Still economically dependent on capitalist economy.
D) Thus unable to provide actual independence and security to their own militants.

Living in a commune is probably cool. If there was a mass movement of people building communes, capitalist economy might collapse. That much is true: But we surely can bring capitalism and the State down better and faster if we organize the struggle than if we hide and wait for them to go away.

[SolarCross]

That such a sad, defeatist view I don't even know where to begin. We can practice our ideals through prefigurative politics and dual power. That's why anarchist resistance movements practice horizontalism, mutual aid, and consensus decision-making. Co-ops can be a part of this, as can free clinics, mutual aid networks, and so on. But we must do so in a way that confronts the powers that be, rather than just fleeing from them.

It is not defeatist; I do not accept defeat but I do recognise that it is probably going to be a long war. I have little doubt that when my young son is a very old man the class war will still be raging as it has for millenia with no end in sight.

No one is fleeing, it is not even a tactical retreat, it is making a stand where you are. I think the nay-sayers are the one's in flight. One can be brave when one's anarchism is just theory. If some choose to make the theory into practice then the theoreticians come out with excuses and a swift retreat into theory.

Forgive my ignorance I am not familiar with some of the jargon you use: prefigurative politics, dual power and horizontalism.