>A commune is communism. The religious rationale for it is different than the Marxist rationale, but the result is the same. A commune is a particular living a

>A commune is communism. The religious rationale for it is different than the Marxist rationale, but the result is the same. A commune is a particular living arrangement. Communism can be applied to whole states, regardless of such a living arrangement. On top of this, "communism" and "communist" has acquired specific meaning in 2024 and much of the 20th century, which is not the idea of communal living of early Christians, of hippies, or even that of Charles Fourrier. Words are define by their use, not by their historical origins. This is just muddying the waters. >That's the promise of communes. Communes are neither necessary nor sufficient for this. You could have distributivism on a larger state that's not a commune. This wouldn't make the whole country "a big commune" without distorting the meaning of the term, and more importantly, how it's colloqually understood. And of course you can also have communes with none of those elements, like people living together with high technology, a Star Trek like commune. Or a commune of people working their ass off and considering leisure a sin. Or a highly hierarchical commune. And several other types besides. Living together and sharing resources (the essentials of a commune) doesn't promise or guarantee the rest I've mentioned.