Accéder au contenu principal

The hard limit to communism

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.”
— Acts 4:32

A communist society would be a community where all members agree on two basic rules: first, anybody able to work would voluntarily do its best to produce goods and services for the community and second, all members of the society would adopt a frugal lifestyle, consuming only what they really need. In such a society, private property — of the means of production and even of everything else — is pointless and you therefore don’t need markets or money. But the most important feature of communism, the key aspect that distinguish it from socialism is that such a society would be based on voluntarism. Communism is a stateless society where social cooperation is neither driven by individual interests nor by state coercion but by a common will to contribute to the well-being of the overall community.

To be sure, the Soviet Union has never, at any point of its history, been a communist society. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a system that was entirely based on state coercion. In the original Marxist project, socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat was the intermediate phase between capitalism and communism. Communism was the final destination — at least officially — and socialism was the way to get there. But as a matter of fact, former USSR just like all the attempts to build a communist society remained stuck in the inferior phase of the process: brutal, totalitarian, socialist regimes. Rewording Trotsky’s famous analogy, the chrysalis never turned into a butterfly.

But does that really mean that communism, as they say, has never been tried? Certainly not: communism or, at least, some form of communism have been tried since the early childhood of human societies, it still exists today and, as far as I know, it seems to be working fairly well… but only on small scale. One of the very best example I could come up with are hutterite colonies. Save for the religious aspect (I know, I know…), these people live under communism or, at least, something very close to communism. They own virtually everything in common, they only use money to trade with the outside — capitalist — world and community management is ensured by three elected leaders. And guess what? Some of these communities in North America have worked that way for more than a century and they are flourishing!

So what’s happening there? Why don’t we have any example of workable, large-scale communist societies while smaller communities seems to live and flourish that way?

Well, here is what I think: when you build a communist society, you have to find a way to coordinate everybody’s efforts without using individual incentives and with a minimum of coercion. That is, you must define common objectives — should we make pencils or not? — and make sure nobody will try to free-ride the rest of the community — working less than they could or consuming more than they need. Well this is far from being easy and I think that the most efficient way to achieve this — and maybe the only way — is to make sure that everybody in the community knows everybody. That is, a workable communist society should be based on a close-knit network of personal relationships.

The thing is there is a hard limit to the size of such communities. It’s called Dunbar’s number.

The number is named after Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, who once had the strange idea to compare primate brain size (e.g. the relative neocortex size) with average social group size and found a surprisingly robust correlation. When Dunbar extrapolated that relationship to homo sapiens, he found that the upper bound of a human group in which stable inter-personal relationships might be maintained should be close to 150. It’s a biological limit.

One way to restate Dunbar’s founding is to say that above 150 people, the coordination of a human group may not rely on personal relationships: you need to find more scalable solutions. While the British anthropologist focused on the role of language — which reduces the amount of work necessary for social grooming — to explain the gigantic size of modern days human societies, I think there is a much more straightforward explanation: we have created social organizations that simply do not rely on inter-personal relationships. There are basically two models: the coercive system (socialism) where coordination is enforced by a central body (the Gosplan) and the free market where coordination relies on the price system.

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that’s the trick: communism is possible and may even be a highly functional system but only for small communities. As far as I know, every single communist experiment that involved more than 150 people — such as the Owenite communities — failed miserably (despites Owen’s efforts, the New Harmony experiment only lasted two years). It just cannot work because the “New Man” needed to achieve communism must not only forget his bourgeois reflexes: he also must increase his neocortical processing capacity.

Now you might wonder how Hutterites managed to maintain their social organization while their population was growing. Well that simple: whenever a colony reaches around 150 people, it splits and forms two sister colonies.


  1. Quelques données numériques ici :

    1. Sur les kibboutz il faudrait des données historiques. Il semble (et je suis très prudent) que les kibboutz originels (de petite taille) ont fonctionné sur un mode communiste mais que la plupart ont été aujourd'hui largement privatisés. Il y a un vrai sujet à étudier.

  2. Pourriez-vous citer l'auteur (sauf si c'est vous) ?

  3. Exact. Sur l'evolution récente :

    Les kibbutz payaient l'eau en-dessous du prix normal.


Enregistrer un commentaire

Posts les plus consultés de ce blog

Brandolini’s law

Over the last few weeks, this picture has been circulating on the Internet. According to RationalWiki, that sentence must be attributed to Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant [1]. I’ve checked with Alberto and, unless someone else claims paternity of this absolutely brilliant statement, it seems that he actually is the original author. Here is what seems to be the very first appearance of what must, from now on, be known as the Brandolini’s law (or, as Alberto suggests, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle):The bullshit asimmetry: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.— ziobrando (@ziobrando) 11 Janvier 2013To be sure, a number of people have made similar statements. Ironically, it seems that the “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes” quote isn’t from Mark Twain but a slightly modified version of Charles Spurgeon’s “a lie will go round the w…

Le prix des sardines quand les pêcheurs ont des téléphones

Soit deux petits villages de pêcheurs de sardines du sud de l’Inde. Chaque nuit, les pêcheurs de chaque bourg partent jeter leurs filets en mer et, le matin venu, ils vendent leurs prises sur la plage à la population de leurs villages respectifs. Parce qu’ils sont relativement distants l’un de l’autre et ne disposent pas de moyens de communication rapide, nos villages vivent en autarcie. C’est-à-dire que leurs habitants n’achètent de sardines qu’aux pêcheurs de leur propre village qui, symétriquement, n’en vendent à personne d’autre qu’à leurs concitoyens.Dans l’état actuel des choses, donc, la ration quotidienne de protéines des habitants de nos villages dépend exclusivement de leurs pêcheurs respectifs. Si la pêche est fructueuse, il est probable que les sardines seront bradées au marché du matin et il n’est pas impossible que les pêcheurs se retrouvent même avec des invendus — c’est-à-dire des poissons bons à jeter. Si, au contraire, la pêche de la nuit a été mauvaise, vous pouvez …

Le paradoxe des oignons

Cette fois-ci, c’est l’inénarrable Paul Jorion qui s’y colle dans un article publié le 26 septembre 2013 sur : « il faut, nous assène l’histrion médiatique, supprimer la spéculation. »Nous-y revoilà. C’est une antique tradition. Déjà, sous l’Ancien Régime, on avait coutume de faire porter le chapeau des aléas climatiques et des politiques imbéciles aux accapareurs ; aujourd’hui, force est de constater que rien n’a changé et qu’on trouve toujours, à la barre du tribunal révolutionnaire, un accusateur public prêt à dénoncer les méfaits des spéculateurs. Si les prix montent, qu’on les pende ; si les prix baissent, qu’on promène leur tête au bout d’une pique ! Au royaume du mensonge, la dénonciation de l’ennemi du peuple tient toujours lieu de pensée.Plutôt que de rentrer dans un débat théorique, je vous propose une approche purement expérimentale, une vérification empirique qui, si elle ne satisfait sans doute pas les conditions requises sur une paillasse – c’est le lot com…