Why don't Anarchists buy an Island, or giant plot of land?

I am not sure why you mention the state here, as I talking more about how market relations are pretty much unavoidable. the different between our approaches is that I realise that this has an advantage because we are inside the very process of capitalist (re-)production and it here that we can disrupt it and build a movement to abolish it.Something that cannot be done from the 'outside' looking in. What do you mean when you say " ALL anarchist movements in the UK have the same relationship with the state in terms of reliance." as beyond that the liberal legal niceity that our organisations are not proscribed I am not sure what you getting at?

like a galt's gulch for anarchists? trying to make the current world better is more productive than running away to the hills to make Shambhala

why are living the lifestyle which you advocate for the rest of the world, and working to promote that lifestyle mutually exclusive?

they're not. but libertarian communism is not a lifestyle.

we are not advocating the lifestyle of living in a shitty, isolated, hippy commune within a capitalist economy to "the rest of the world". We advocate mass class struggle, the global abolition of wage labour and living in harmony with the environment.

This is qualitatively different from living in a tent.

And like I keep saying - if you think it is worthwhile, and cannot understand why it has never had any success in the past, then go do it and report back.

I suggest you read the whole thread before posting . It is not whether these are mutually exclusive but about the focus of our limited energies and the 'motors' of social change. Those arguing against don't see these ' rural experimental living arrangements' as capable of being a 'motor of change' neither by example nor the 'snowball effect'. Therefore we believe that it is more important to put our limited time and effort into those areas that will have immediate benefit and also have the possibility of bursting beyond the boundaries of the everyday. Personally I have no problem with folks living in 'alternative social arrangements' including farm based intentional communities and I am sure people living in these communities can also use them as a base for engagement int he class struggle. I also believe that some of these can make a creative and useful contribution to our understanding of a number different aspects of possible alternatives. But to think as the OP and others on thread have that a few hundred anarchists running off to live on a island could in any way meaningfully contribute to possibility of the creation of an worldwide anarchist society, is to be completely ignorant of the history of previous attempts and to take what is the end an elitist view of rest of humanity which sees people as only living in their current situations due to ignorance and stupidity not material social relation. Something that cannot be escaped but needs to be totally transformed through a social revolution.

but again, why do we keep on assuming that these communes would be isolated?

Well if they are not isolated how are they going to be 'living examples of anarchism' as they will be immersed in the social relations of capital? In which case they cannot operate as mini islands of anarchism in the sense the OP was suggesting. You can see the tension clearly in that the more you wish to achieve your anarchist utopian ideal, the more you need to disengage from the wider society on a material basis i.e. move to complete self sufficiency. This is labour intensive and obviously needs an extensive land base, which means that affordable arable land will be in places that are not accessible and the workload will also tend towards an in ward focus, with outreach being largely based on folks coming to visit and working. There is nothing inherently wrong with this except as a strategy to achieve an anarchist society, because it is clearly hopeless. Now if you are arguing for some sort 'communal' living arrangements controlled by those living there on an anarchist basis, there are already plenty of examples, the best example in the UK would be the Radical Routes network of co-ops. Some are simply housing co-ops other more like rural intentional communities, but they are created to meet immediate needs of affordable democratic housing etc and to be a base for socially conscious people to work together and engage the wider community. Now it is important to note that they do not believe setting up housing c-ops etc will in of itself achieve the sort of social change they desire, so despite them promoting themselves as an alternative to copy, they see the co-ops more as a stable supportive base for their other work and not the process by which to transform society.

That was well put JasonCortez and it's sort of what I was trying to say last time I was on, namely that the setting up of rural collectives is in of itself not the mechanism for social revolution, but can be, to use your words 'a stable supportive base for other work'. I'm referring to an anarchist presence in rural areas. In my experience anarchist groups tend to be largely urban affairs and believe me people in rural areas will not take too kindly to being coerced by 'city ideas'. This problem arose in the 1905 Russian revolution when anarchists were divided along the agrarian collectivism of Bakunin and the more industrial syndicalists (as well as the individualists). It was this disorganisation which caused the failure of that revolution.

These ideas also seem to stem from the Israeli Kibbutzim movements.

Not really. The Owenites were organizing in this way in the mid 1800s, as were a whole plethora of different commune movements.

How was it different?

Okay, that's the silliest missing of context I've seen in a while. The rest of my post goes:

So no, it did not originate with the Kibbutzim movement, as the idea was around before then. If you do want a distinct difference from the Kibbutzim movement, it's in that this thread's OP's proposal, misguided as it is, does not seem to require the banishment of people already living in that plot of land, and seems to suggest buying it, while many Kibbutzim had no problem setting up on land from which Arabs fled or were removed during the Israeli War of Independence. I do, hoever, imagine that it will end the same way the current Kibbutzim, as well as many previous isolated communes went: either outside "help" is hired for wage, or space is rented out to retail establishments and amusement parks, making them simply an uncommon form of capitalist endeavor, or they take on austerity and ultimately have to fold, like many failed co-operatives.

What about before the British Mandate?

I agree, I was just asking how this was different from the Kibbutz Movement.

Sorry I wasn't trying to misquote you....I was just trying to focus the question on the Kibbutz, thats all.

Whoops, ignore that comment. I meant to ask "What about prior to 1948?" Sorry

Buying land off absentee Palestinian landlords, which led to the forcing off/proletarianization of tenant farmers. Interestingly, since a lot of the early Zionist were socialists with crap analysis they thought that this process of proletarianization would not be a problem as long as the Arabs were not hired as workers and exploited. Of course this just made things even worse for the new wage-labourers and also contributed to the separation between Jews and Arabs.

(taking this to mean before 1947, as corrected later)
As far as I know, it wasn't as easy to remove Arabs from their homes before then. So most Kibbutzes established beforehand were likely established on land bought legally. See this article, though, to see what "legal" land ownership was all about back then.

Well, you're free to ignore my comments about what's similar about them, then.

In that case, there are better ways of doing that than quoting people out of context, resulting in them appearing to say something that is different than what they had actually said. As far as this thread is concerned, the basic problems with Kibbutzes as well as with all isolated communes, will probably prevade this "new" idea, as well.

I stand corrected regarding the kibbutz topic. I was multitasking around the house earlier when I was reading the thread and just misread what you said.

Oh. That's alright then. No harm done. Sorry for responding so harshly, it's been a bad week at the forums.

Fuck buying a plot of land, nomad anarachists is what we need! Travel around fucking capitalism up, without paying for shit, all the while preparing and training for guerilla war!!!!!!!!!!

FULL ANARCHY WIN TO THE OUTLAW!!!

it would help

man could you imagine it? Loads of anarchist-traveling-communes spring up around the planet!

Bad dreams tonight

Squatting might not be revolutionary or world changing but it does distant anarchists from the landlord and his bank manager . i came here because i ran the same search ,Richard Branson buys island for anarchist community project , "( The SOA Motorclub will remain in Ceder Creek ,with the rest of the sponsors ; ) "
Naturalists ,minimalists in green ,hardcore first generation , we might as well be going to mars , support stay within capitalism , get the picture , otherwise we'd have to become like the Amish or something , the Inuits in Alaska , Steve here wants his T.V , obviously he won't be one of the first on the island . Children eventually would be born there , their needs will diminish but not their knowledge and appreciation for a free life in a caring community devoid of class , racial antagonisms or coercion , no depths , no faith confrontations either , count me in with the first wave!
It could really become the Utopian dream the whole World would be envious , but here comes another treat , envy and we know how ruthless and deceitful the imperialist beast is.
I see fishing disputes and fly over, local resources have to be cataloged going in , no country will make any claims later on . Neutral to all worldly and unworldly geopolitics . There will be competitive islands run by capitalists , come buy some freedom , on your shee-like island with artificial sunshine and bubbly water, lightshows and girls in bunny suits.
Law and order , maintained by the community , a council would delegate with all the inhabitants, while the position for representative(s) also would have to voted for by the community . Meetings held weekly ,...
Internet access a must , natural - medical -technical knowledge and news from the rest of the world cannot not be neglected ..
Currency ?.. open to debate : bartering , loan/share, service exchange , etc ?..
iMarx

I notice that FULL COMMUNISM is conspicuously absent from the above list. . .

I think that's really the least of its problems.

~J.

what happens when you break your first solar panel? how do you get clean water? what instruments do you use to grow food? how do you replace those when they break? you could try trade with capitalism to replace anything thats not bare rock or wood. then you compete with their technological efficiency or specialize into something where technological improvement isnt very effective. making honey comes to mind, thats what some anarchist communes try to do here. is it better honey? no, but more expensive, to my judgement they mostly live off sympathy of the people who buy their stuff out of idealism and kind of "donate* to them. thats the perspective you got: farming / hunting / gathering or donations by people from capitalism.

Given the sick prison planet agenda with Transhumanism (and the rest , the endless rest! ) , moving out to the countyside , and learning to be as self sufficient as is possible is a goal more of us should aspire to. I'v just realised that if I elaborate on this I'll wear my finger tips away. Its a no brainer on many levels. Get the land with as many good heads that are willing , fraternise with babylon all you have to but the least you have to , in order to create and sustain it all. If the system has failed , doomed to osmofy into the extreme fascist state that will make Thatcher seem likea sweet distant memory , what chance to change this grey future state from within? The odd tiny , petty victory overshadowed by forever growing , toxic tuma like chips chisled into shoulders. I aspire to anarchy but am not an anarchist. I think its a very tall order to actually be a proper anarchist , though the fundamentals are simple enough to understand I think we can only ever aspire to be the best people we can be. I dont think you are a true anarchist if you call yourself an anarchist ,.just like you cant call yourself modest. . Just ome opinions. I dont think flogging a dead horse is good for anyone.

that doesn't follow

it hasn't, this is how its meant to work

this doesn't really make sense, anarchism is not a personal lifestyle choice