What would make a commune a communism? A government established for the purpose of maintaining individual accountability to the "community good". In essence, an authority. (Although this doesn't have to be a fascism, of course; it could be, theoretically, a democracy I suppose, with some constraints or proper cultural bias).
Of course, many communes have an authority, either elected or inherited via an apointed role. They could be seen as a microcosm of communism. The challenge, of course, with many systems is scaling them. I think there is a huge danger when responsibility, authority and accountability and decoupled and the wider the gap between the government and the governed the more apparent the challenges of this become as each feel distanced from the other.
One of the hidden dangers of any system where the organization takes on accountability for the success of its members is that in order to maintain that they must execute authoritarian priveledge. That's part of why my business model change (mentioned earlier) worked so well. It took away my incentive to motivate individuals (as you see in a salaried employee environment) and put that motivation on their shoulders. I no longer have to manage, people are far more motivated and because they are individually accountable they feel more ownership and thus quality is notably improved.
Of course, this is all somewhat speculative; I'm not terribly well read on Marxism or Communism and am speaking more from knowledge of popular implementations than actual theory. In addition, I'm speaking out of a bias based on American culture and my own experimentation with governing systems.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 10:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 10:47 am (UTC)Just add dictator
Date: 2004-09-30 11:15 am (UTC)Of course, many communes have an authority, either elected or inherited via an apointed role. They could be seen as a microcosm of communism. The challenge, of course, with many systems is scaling them. I think there is a huge danger when responsibility, authority and accountability and decoupled and the wider the gap between the government and the governed the more apparent the challenges of this become as each feel distanced from the other.
One of the hidden dangers of any system where the organization takes on accountability for the success of its members is that in order to maintain that they must execute authoritarian priveledge. That's part of why my business model change (mentioned earlier) worked so well. It took away my incentive to motivate individuals (as you see in a salaried employee environment) and put that motivation on their shoulders. I no longer have to manage, people are far more motivated and because they are individually accountable they feel more ownership and thus quality is notably improved.
Of course, this is all somewhat speculative; I'm not terribly well read on Marxism or Communism and am speaking more from knowledge of popular implementations than actual theory. In addition, I'm speaking out of a bias based on American culture and my own experimentation with governing systems.
CHILL
Date: 2004-09-30 11:16 am (UTC)Re: CHILL
Date: 2004-09-30 11:18 am (UTC)And that's a good question, though. I don't know :).
no worries
Date: 2004-09-30 11:21 am (UTC)Ich bin ein berliner
Date: 2004-09-30 11:35 am (UTC)Re: Ich bin ein berliner
Date: 2004-09-30 11:38 am (UTC)... works for me.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 04:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 04:47 pm (UTC)Or...not.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 04:53 pm (UTC)Note the term "DON" in Jesus' halo in most medieval paintings. He was the fucking godfather ;-).
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 04:58 pm (UTC)Christian = terrorist?
Holey rocks, we are fucked.