SadArtemis

~~(offers jugular)~~

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.

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.

Why shouldn't it compete with private industry (and in doing so, promote its own ideal of locally-owned, communally-organized industry)? 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 within a healthier framework than that of private capital?

Personally I don't quite get it- if a group of people were to head to a developing country, purchase land and invest in it, and bring and develop their own talents- why would they then limit themselves to an insular commune model?

The majority of countries, developing countries included, are also capitalist. You will still need to exist within these socioeconomic frameworks, and come to an understanding with the local governance (which may or may not come with its own serious difficulties). Small, negligible communes in remote, neglible regions can probably(?) get by, but past a certain point (and especially with expansion and the kinds of political and industrial development you seem to be describing) a more concrete arrangement and place within the local economy, etc. would be more ideal (and probably necessary for survival/viability) IMO.

Capitalism (and particularly its highest form, imperialism) is the devil, yes. Yada yada (though I do think it is so)... But people will generally work in their own self-interest (and for projects past a certain scale it should be banking on that fact)- not necessarily "selfish/sociopathic interest" like the west likes to promote, but an insular, limited commune only has so much appeal, and so much sway in the world. Within the current global system, and the systems as they exist in most developing countries, I don't quite understand why things should be limited to a commune alone, when those with such resources to start such a thing could also genuinely create the foundations for something even more broadly-reaching and potentially, politically/etc. potent. And I don't understand either why the production should be limited to simply self-sufficiency rather than taking advantage of the typical advantages developing countries have in the global market (cheap production costs, etc) to pursue a trade surplus with the wider world and promote the development of the region (ideally while promoting/creating a strong foundation for labor organization and co-operative ownership, etc- hell if I know).

This is all just coming off the top of my head, so it's not necessarily the most coherent or well thought out of concepts. But if a group with such resources were to head to a developing "third world" country- why create some commune of "splendid self-sufficient isolation?" Why not try to create a mini-China? It could start off as a commune (and it might very well be easiest to start off as such- akin to how China developed its own """ghost cities""" as the west liked to mock) for many reasons, but I don't see why remaining a commune (retaining the commune/communal spirit and organization would be another thing) would be so ideal.

(edit) simply a quick thought- but if you were to ask me, the initial humble beginnings of a "commune" model for instance of the scale described, could just as well be directed towards creating a planned community (with the goal of expanding into a town, or eventual city). And if such a group were to have the means and skills to create such a developed commune- as described, why not create for local markets and foreign exports as well, and thus help break the broader regions' dependencies on foreign industry (or agriculture, etc)?

And why not seek to make the commune (whose organization presumably could develop/transition into a co-op or union of some kind, alongside some form of municipal govt.) indispensable (economically, technically, politically, etc) and expansive within the broader society itself?

Y'know, I could understand if this was about "eeeliteees" and the "satanic liberal cabals" or whatever. I wouldn't agree with it, but I could at least understand (so long as it didn't stray into antisemitism), considering the blatant wickedness of the system- its not like it would make the western elites any worse if they ate a few of their millions of victims here and there, everyone knows they're genocidal baby killers and worse (even if people may disagree on the specifics of who and what is victimized).

But no, apparently it's blood libel against Haitians again. At first I thought it was incredibly racist but coming out of nowhere/utterly ridiculous (still is), but if this "baby/flesh eating" nonsense is going to be a running thing, that's gone far past "cats and dogs" (already racist and blood libel-adjacent imo, as an Asian) and well into the territory of "inciting pogroms/lynchings."

IMO it can always get worse. You can look to Ukraine and the Philippines as examples of just how bad it can get; at least for now they (Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova, Georgia, etc) are ostensibly independent countries with some sort of self-interest and self-preservation.

It's one thing to have a Franco or Salazar in power, and another to have a Horthy or Quisling. And there are all sorts of creative things the west can use a fully compromised Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, etc. for (alongside the fact it would strengthen the western unified fascist front in the likely upcoming WW3), as can be seen with the Kenyan military police in Haiti, or the US'/western EU's attempts to expand NATO activities to the entire globe (in Asia and west Africa in particular).

and yet the only thing the government is actually concerned with was civil unrest.

It makes sense, if you think about it. All our country's problems are self-inflicted; the system is acting exactly as intended.

The individual culprits' intents may not be exactly to revert the country back to feudalism (or to mask-off fascism), but collectively and effectively, it is what it is, and none of them are willing to change course (because it would eat into their bottom line). All the various rentiers that truly constitute the government and institutions of this country (the cartels/oligopolies, landlords, etc) are moving this country exactly in that direction.

It's India (that alone sadly explains why it was banned, typical Sinophobia). If only the population there had the same energy towards the Brits who pillaged and destroyed their land and laughed as millions starved in various manufactured famines- or if they had the same energy to Uncle Sam, which has always backed terrorists/separatists, encircled India from its inception and in recent years brought about hostile regime changes encircling it again, and used lowkey nuclear threats on India during the Bangladeshi war of liberation...

Really shows what a joke settler ""socialism"" is. It's hilariously sad.

Zionist settlers, squatting on stolen land, receiving large govt. subsidies for doing so, living leisurely lives with little work while the untermensch (racialized migrant workers, and even racialized fellow Jews) do the bulk of the labor, live segregated and precariously with none of the benefits, in terrible conditions, and dehumanized: "is this socialism?"

Please, prepare the nukes, President Putin... My people long for freedom...

Seriously though, if it all comes down on our heads it may be more of a relief than anything else. Still better if it doesn't get to that point of course, but whatever happens will be entirely the west's fault and the result of the rest of humanity's hands being forced into action, something that is even rather overdue.

IMO- as they are a settler-colonial state in the genocidal subjugation phase of colonization - the cruelty is the point.

"White supremacy" and "settler supremacy" means nothing, until it is put into action. This is how it is done- through inflicting pain, humiliation, and suffering on the "ubtermensch."

This is how it was done in all western colonies; it is how it was done in the Anglo settler-states to the natives, and it was done to the enslaved blacks and their descendants, and even as society progressed such that the optics became worse (even among whites), these countless little cruelties and humiliations still remained, swept under the rug or downplayed, in order to assert their "place in the world" over that of their lessers.

This is still how it is, across the west and wherever westoid-mentality westerners plague.