Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjensen | Hacker News Reader

Sure. But according to Wikipedia, they abandoned communal ownership of property in 1932. Seems like the common thread is still that all attempts at fully communal systems fail sooner or later.

Successful group ownership of a business by the workers is pretty common; it just has to stop short of a commune.

View on HN

I know of one [1], the Bruderhof, that maintains communal ownership of property and has existed for almost 100 years. It's not easy to do, though, so perhaps an exception that proves the rule. They do have some thriving businesses that make surviving in a capitalist world possible [2]. [1] source: I was born and spent my childhood there [2] http://www.communityplaythings.com/ http://www.rifton.com/

The anabaptist religious movements are fascinating. There are Mennonite sects in the US and Canada who live communally and have also lasted a relatively long time.

There's a large Mennonite colony just south of the Amana colonies in eastern Iowa. Apparently, they have little interaction (not that they hate each other, they just don't do business together), but we'd see them both. In Iowa City, we'd see Mennonites in town, actually shopping at Wal-Mart and the like. The Amanas were a much rarer sight unless you actually went to the Amana colonies (which we did regularly, because the restaurants there are some of my favorite places to eat ever).

It's possible that they fail because they have to operate against a capitalist backdrop.

It's also possible (and, I would argue, more probable) that they fail because for any sedentary peoples, the accumulation of material wealth is inevitable, and such accumulation is unequal. Thus, some degree of "capitalist individualism" grows organically out of sedentary societies.

The only successful societies with anything resembling fully-shared ownership are those which can't accumulate much of anything.

I say this not to defend ultra-liberal capitalism or anything, but rather to point out that utopias tend to be very artificial (and therefore short-lived) constructs.

Ultra-liberal capitalism is also very artificial

Respectfully, that's a very loaded statement, as evidenced by the absence of a clearly-stated point. My reaction is twofold:

1. You seem to be implying that ultra-liberal capitalist societies abound. I disagree to the extent that most economies/political-systems incorporate social elements that tend to push the dial back towards resource sharing. I do, however, concede that there has been a trend towards liberalism in recent decades, but this is accompanied by increasing social instability. I don't see how your comment constitutes a counter-point in this respect.

2. It's not really artificial given the two priors discussed above:

    a) accumulation of wealth (and the subsequent inequalities in entrains)

    b) low social trust

Again, this should not be interpreted as a defense of ultra-liberal capitalism, but I think it's so entrenched precisely because it follows naturally from the aforementioned preconditions.

It's also wrapped up in the move from hunting and gathering to farming. Hunting is relatively random and while skill plays a role you can't rely on it. Also excess meat won't last too long so why not share? Farming is more reliable and when bad luck hits it often hits an entire group at once. And it involved more unpleasant labor to farm a lot of food meaning incentives become more important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com