"I'm not a Communist. I believe in community oriented societies."

Even after Daniel Tosh poked fun at anyone who says, "I'm not religious. I'm spiritual," in which he remarks, "I'm not a liar, but you're interesting," people still say it. Likewise, with the current trend of communal social orientation people are arguing for a denouncement of individualism and for the propagation of concern for the community; simply because the whole is always stronger than the individual.

I can't count the number of times in which that argument has been proposed in architecture / urbanism discussions amongst friends and peers (though the number is probably rather small). One of these arguments occurred the other night, more or less (thank you for discussion, by the way kiddo). So here is my retort forever (and by forever I mean for as long as I care to be concerned) : "Move to China! They are community oriented and denounce individualism. Your concept is not new. It's called Communism, and to your delight it is a very successful system. In fact, that is where the word 'Communism' comes from : community."

Really what is being argued for is that we should all live in communes or live under Communistic rule. Of course, in our Socialist-Democratic nation we see Communism as a negative, usually because of Hitler and Stalin. But Communism is a very successful system, and I say that based on evidence. Now, usually people say something like : "Well, it works well on paper, but doesn't work in practice." Well if that isn't the truth with everything, then I don't know what is. A circle has an infinite number of angles in mathematical theory, but in reality it has a finite, though very large number of angles, which is the result of Planck's Constant (the smallest measurement due to the materialization of quanta particles).

No, Communism does work in reality, and there are some good examples. Communism is the most basic and primitive form of governance, and it is common in the animal kingdom. For instance, ant colonies are a Communistic rule. The queen ant is little more than a slave for breeding. The warrior ants are even less useful, usually being sluggish and don't really do any fighting (which is done by the workers). The drones do little more than breed with the queen. It is the worker ants that rule the colony. They have a very successful caste system that is dynamic amongst the individual ants, but is constant amongst the group. It is the workers that propagate the success of the colony, and queen takes little credit for anything. Bees have a very similar social caste / governance system.

With mammals the situation changes dramatically, because mammals usually have fewer numbers than ants and bees. But the concept is still similar. There is usually a leader with primates and beasts. The leader's reign is always subjective to his generosity towards the group. Once the leader becomes tyrannical, usually another male will challenge his authority. But, of course, the workers can always leave the leader, which is why amongst primates the leader tries to help out a lot (also, he usually does this because if he does a lesser subject a favor, then that subject must be faithful to him as payment for the favor). Of course, each system is different, and I am greatly over generalizing here only because it's not necessary to get detailed.

Regardless, Communism does work in practice. The only thing is that it doesn't work well with humans, because of our lust for power, and with that more power. I personally favor individualism, but that is another account. Really the point of this post is : just say it like it is. If you want Community-oriented societies, then just say Communism and move to China.