The Deprogram Podcast

Historically, Marxists have had an emphasis on building revolutionary political parties (especially vanguard parties), as well as expanding labor union participation and militancy.

Full-fledged communes can be fragile in many ways. Some can end up tearing apart under their own internal pressures, some rural communes especially can become permanently isolated and unable to sustain new generations, and some high-profile communes can be outwardly antagonistic enough to the state that they get raided or bombed. There are questions of stability that have plagued past communal movements, but I think we have the ability to address these questions while retaining the model. One of the trickiest challenges, IMHO, is breaking out of the reality of playing out a parallel of "socialism in one country", or "socialism in one commune" where the concerns end at the boundaries of the commune.

Some Marxists might see communizing as "something that happens after the social discontinuity of revolution", or view the process as a form of incrementalism, or possibly even see questions of lifestyle as a liberal endeavor, especially if it involves accruing capital to set up the commune. Many Marxists would probably assert that the state would quickly neutralize any commune that began to pose a threat to capital accumulation. Thus the makeup of communes in the past generation or two has been predominantly anarchists.

But I see the party, the union (or the worker's cooperative), and the commune as mutually supportive aspects of a successful communist movement, and which should naturally have a substantial amount of continuity amongst them. I would say that state repression can be leveraged against any of these, and that the commune is an effective way of developing a revolutionary support base while also directly benefitting proles' lives in the here and now.