As long as the commune takes collective action against flannel, I'm in.

It's the human version of the most common form of organisation. Lion prides, baboon troupes, bison herds, wolf packs. It's the same concept: getting together to pool resources and knowledge to have a better life than going it alone. Most of the problems come from human fantasy. It won't make everyone overflow with rapturous joy every moment of every day. It won't be a cakewalk. But the collective power of a group of likeminded people working together has a 'greater than the sum of its parts' effect. As long as it can be maintained, it's better quality of life than being alone in the world and freer than being part of a large scale society. Its only weaknesses are the primary reasons so many people don't live like that: human unsatisfiability and military weakness. Even if you start with a great group, to maintain it you need the next generation and someone always is born or introduced who doesn't hold the values of the group, and wants the group to change to suit what they want. And if it doesn't self destruct, its size is limited, and can be conquered by a larger group focused on the values of their 'leaders.'

Communes can definitely be an important part of building and shaping community. They're an appealing form for an intentional effort to base community around reciprocity and the commons. As long as the commune is reasonably open to the wider community and connected to other efforts (of course, with boundaries in place to preserve the basis of the commune), it can be an important place for education and mutual aid. But they lose their transformative potential if they're closed off from the rest of the world. At that point, it's just an exclusive club, and a breeding ground for a cult. And communes also are a common way to institutionalize settler populations, for example the Plymouth pilgrim colony and the Israeli kibbutzim.