You're pointing out how some people are, based on your own cultural and societal perspective, obviously one affected by negative experiences.
I am merely pointing out that this is in no way universal, and that the behavior you've observed is not caused by human nature, but rather by societal pressures and the forced state of constant ego-centered competition that people find themselves in.
Neoliberalism has made us callous and indifferent at best to the plight of our fellow human beings and the natural world.
The ideal I talk about is really just respecting other people and respecting things even if they are not yours personally. Not very complicated nor high-theory stuff.
If you want to talk about socialism specifically, the biggest drawback of
socialism is that if you do it too well, you attract the attention of the US military industrial complex.
The entire modern history of Latin America exemplifies this issue.
Neoliberalism and capitalism do not tolerate alternatives to exist, because they undermine the condtructed narrative that no valid alternatives exist.
> If you want to talk about socialism specifically, the biggest drawback of socialism is that if you do it too well, you attract the attention of the US military industrial complex.
The US is hardly the only place where socialism has been tried. Last I checked, over 10,000 communes have been formed in the US since its inception. They all failed. None were put out of business by government intervention.
The Pilgrims tried a commune the first year (they starved). The Jamestown colony also attempted to work as a commune (they starved). The San Francisco Summer of Love commune lasted maybe 3 months.
Remember the Jonestown commune?
Israel has their kibbutzes, but they'd starve if they didn't receive generous taxpayer support from the Israeli government.
The great thing about the US is there are no laws against communes. You are free to go set one up with your like-minded friends. Nobody is going to try to stop you. People do it all the time.
But they never work. They never have, and never will, because of human nature.
There are tons of well-functioning communes, cooperatives and similar communities all over the world, doing quite well for themselves and the people who live in them and their surrounding communities. Many have existed for decades, such as garden allotment associations here in the Nordic countries. Freetown Christiania has been a cooperative commune since the 1970s. A significant percentage of housing here in Denmark exists as cooperatives, and the best ones have long waiting lists of people wishing to move in and join.
They tend not to shout a lot about how great and awesome they are, because that sort of thing goes against the idea and mindset.
Perhaps you should look beyond your own ideology, and you'll see that there are a lot more and sometimes better ways to do things than your particular way.
Stole the land they use and supported themselves selling illegal drugs. Maybe they're also living off of government benefit checks, which is not self-sufficiency.
No mention that I could find on the turnover. 1 to 2 years is a typical stay in a commune, as people get tired of it and move on.
> sometimes better ways to do things than your particular way
If Freetown is your ideal, feel free to move there. No thanks from me. It's neighbors don't appear to care for it, either.
> cooperatives
Cooperative housing isn't the same thing as giving people free housing any more than a corporation means giving people free shares.
Selling illegal drugs enables one to make huge profits not available to legal commerce.
I've always been in favor of the legalization of marijuana. I voted for it. But my point that taking advantage of the high profits from trafficking in illegal things is not a valid argument for the economic viability of communes.
For a commune to have standing as a viable way to live, it:
1. needs to be voluntary
2. needs to have its residents be there long term, i.e. 5 years or more
3. needs a legitimate source of income (not subsisting on crime)
4. needs to generate enough income to be self-sustaining (not relying on external income to make up the slack, such as donations, retirement pay or government welfare payments)
5. not rely on theft of resources, such as squatting on land not paid for
If you have evidence for communes that fit these criteria, I'd like to see it.
Christiania and countless other communes around the world do quite well, whether you choose to believe it or not. It is not up to you to define the end-all be-all definition of a commune.
> Clay observed that 20 percent of the membership turned over annually.[23]
I looked at your Twin Oaks example. They weed out slackers and drunks before they can join. Turnover is 20% per year. Evidently people like the concept of a commune much more than the reality.
At least it's a better example than your Christiana one (living on stolen land and illegal trade). It also validates my point that if you want to live in a commune in America, you are free to start one. They are not illegal. Nobody is going to try and stop you. There's no need for you to agitate for them - just do it. If it's really a better and workable way of living, they'd be commonplace.
> It is not up to you to define the end-all be-all definition of a commune
I didn't define a commune. I set out quite reasonable criteria that would characterize a successful commune.
