They seemed to offer so much hope and set an example for many of us. Why didn't they last and catch on more widely? Going back to preliberation China, the CPC/PLA succeeded with their self-reliance soviets. Is that what it takes to keep the flames of idealism burning, an overarching ideology and vanguard party, like communism-socialism?
Joan's Answer #11: Communitarianism. There were several reasons for their demise. One was the development of mass production, which made their craft system less competitive and required assembly lines and huge factories, near urban workers. Socialist energies moved to the trade union movement and Marxist approaches. Today it would be easier to localize production.
The children of communalism wanted to do something different. The larger capitalist society lured once production picked up in the late 19th century. So, e.g., few men joined the Shakers (because of their celibacy policy also), and the orphans bailed out at age 18. Field work and carpentry could be done only by men, according to their theory, and the sisters had to hire outsiders to maintain their "self-sufficient" community.
Overarching ideology and indoctrination helped a lot. Yet even this faded, especially with the progress of science. The Hutterites, the most long-lived of the early communitarian societies, are now facing decline in part because of the introduction of cell phones and the internet.
A similar weakening effect occurred in Eastern European socialist countries. The children wanted to do something different. They didn't remember why their parents and grandparents chose socialism. Many hadn't but conformed as a practical matter. People were lured by the outside capitalist systems; there was also covert and overt subversion by cold warriors. Socialist indoctrination lost its effect, even among leaders, and crucially, among scientists and intellectuals. A useful anthology exploring this process is Communism Unwrapped by Paulina Bren and Mary Neuburger (eds.).
Communal living has so many advantages, especially in our day with the decline of the family. But it isn't popular. I have asked experts on Soviet housing (without much useful response) why the "the state of the art" communal housing built in Moscow in the late 60s was cancelled.
An extremely well-equipped communal apartment complex (House of the New Life) designed by architect N. Osterman and others was built as a prototype. The residents were to be small families and single people, of all occupations and economic status. Some of the residents would be the staff for the building, which included a large dining room, small cafe's, and closets on the main floor for overnight disinfection of clothing. Those who didn't want to eat in the communal places could have meals sent up on a dumbwaiter. There was also a clinic, a library, a pool, sports halls, children's playgrounds, hobby workshops, radio and TV studios, et al. However, it was deemed impractical as a model and converted into a university dormitory. Some denounced it as conferring too much privilege on residents; others deemed it a leftist deviation threatening the institution of the family.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
